With the consequence that Americans, for instance, would be unlikely to vote themselves into paying $2.8 trillion annually for this more leisurely life. Or even to vote that other, richer Americans should pay it, because if less wealth is being extracted then the sustainability of the scheme looks a little sketchy.
On the other hand voters don't think much about long-term sustainability, but do think a lot about being given money, so this scheme would be politically viable regardless.
On the other hand voters don't think much about long-term sustainability, but do think a lot about being given money, so this scheme would be politically viable regardless.