Originally Posted by Starkipraggy
If you increase tax but increase subsidies to the lower and middle class to offset the tax, wouldn't that work out as well?
I was under the impression that people would be trying to save whatever they can, so instead of letting them save the little money it can get taxed so you can subsidise them.
So... we'd be taking their money and giving it right back to them? What, if anything, does that accomplish, if the money's all ending up right back where it started, other than, as Lus pointed out, creating more paperwork and therefore costing more money?
Aside from that, compare the Bush tax refund, which no one spent, to the Obama tax cut in the stimulus, which people did spend (and barely knew about but yeah). Lus is correct, the point isn't that they have money, it's that they're not just being given money.