1/Let me expand on this point by @MichaelRStrain about Sanders' "Stop BEZOS" bill. bloomberg.com/view/articles/…
Strain asks: "Should we view any national health-care program as a multitrillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy to business?"
This is not a gotcha. It's a crucial question.
Strain asks: "Should we view any national health-care program as a multitrillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy to business?"
This is not a gotcha. It's a crucial question.
2/The whole idea of Sanders' bill is that government benefits to working people are a form of corporate welfare.
Is that true?
If so, it means every time we decide to give out a new government benefit to the working poor, we're dishing out corporate welfare.
Is that right?
Is that true?
If so, it means every time we decide to give out a new government benefit to the working poor, we're dishing out corporate welfare.
Is that right?
3/Suppose we look at working people, and we say "These people need some better housing. Let's give them housing vouchers, funded by taxes on the wealthy."
By Sanders' logic, this is bad. By Sanders' logic, corporations are now robbing the taxpayers.
By Sanders' logic, this is bad. By Sanders' logic, corporations are now robbing the taxpayers.
4/By that logic, every time we decide tax the rich to help the working poor, corporations are committing increased robbery.
That logic makes no sense to me. Apparently it makes sense to supporters of Sanders' bill.
That logic makes no sense to me. Apparently it makes sense to supporters of Sanders' bill.
5/Of course, in the real world it IS true that when we give out means-tested benefits, it allows corporations to lower their wages a bit.
So suppose we give out $2 of new benefits, and corporations reduce wages by $1 as a result, increasing their profit.
That can happen!!
So suppose we give out $2 of new benefits, and corporations reduce wages by $1 as a result, increasing their profit.
That can happen!!
6/But if the increased benefits are supported by taxes on the rich, what does it matter?
Govt. takes $2 from rich ppl and hands it to working poor.
Companies lower wages by $1, so rich ppl get $1 more in profit.
That's still a net transfer of $1 from rich to working poor!
Govt. takes $2 from rich ppl and hands it to working poor.
Companies lower wages by $1, so rich ppl get $1 more in profit.
That's still a net transfer of $1 from rich to working poor!
7/So as long as we're paying for benefits by taxing the rich (which is usually the case), corporate wage reduction doesn't completely negate the wealth transfer.
8/In any case, I think there's a real danger, rhetorically, of painting government benefits as robbery of the taxpayer.
Taxing the rich to help the poor has been a very successful strategy, and abandoning - and even denouncing - that strategy seems to me like a bad move.
(end)
Taxing the rich to help the poor has been a very successful strategy, and abandoning - and even denouncing - that strategy seems to me like a bad move.
(end)
