|
|
|
|
|
|
by oconnor663
3524 days ago
|
|
|
> Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes. I don't know enough about the literature to comment on that part, but this is an uncharitable summary that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient too. You can make the same argument about paying for transfers, even if you don't have any particular love of Walmart. |
|
|
I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda.
I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs:
http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro...
Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard:
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562...
What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it?
>Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient
Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes.