|
|
|
|
|
by zaroth
2580 days ago
|
|
It’s not a judgement against poor people. No one has their savings “wiped out” by inflation. It is simply an annual cost for having assets, and an annual benefit for having debt. Since poor people necessarily have more debt on average than rich people, poor people on average benefit from higher inflation whereas to rich people it acts like a tax. For people who want a weath tax, I say, why not just target a slightly higher inflation rate? |
|
With regards to "no one has their savings wiped out by inflation", tell that to, say, Russians in the early 90s. Very real and very significant savings in Sberbank turned to virtually nothing, i.e. wiped out, by inflation.
I would still argue that a higher unexpected inflation rate would hurt the poor the most, but may benefit middle class holding mortgages (although the more likely effect is that the negative effect on the overall economy would end up hurting everyone, with the poor being hurt the most).