| > including the recent tax cut, which was a redistribution upwards in the income/wealth scale. The net result of a tax cut, even if applied unevenly, would be less redistribution, by definition, not more. > What exactly is "artificial housing demand"? Supply and demand. Everyone obviously can't afford to pay $1 million in rent per month, thus market rents are substantially lower. Government intervention is creating artificial demand at a higher price point than would otherwise be sustainable. > Agreed. It can only be solved by building more housing. Why would a city build more housing when the wealthy control the poor with subsidized housing. They always have a steady stream of income thanks to welfare. > UBI could in some cases, however, give some people the means to move away from high housing cost areas to areas where UBI goes a longer way towards providing housing for them. The market has an answer for this. It's just going to raise prices in those more desirable areas. |
You are leaving out what follows tax cuts, which is the cutting of government services to the poor. That's where the upward redistribution would in the near term. That might have happened if the political winds were blowing in a different direction this past November.
For now, those disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthy are being paid for with record national debt, which will be borne by the non wealthy of a future generation.
Yours is the same logic that lauded the tax cut for giving a secretary a $1.50/week after tax pay increase, a boast which was then retracted in apparent shame:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/us/politics/paul-ryan-twe...
> The market has an answer for this. It's just going to raise prices in those more desirable areas.
As will tax cuts.