Roger Odisio wrote,
The clearest way to see the effect . . .
The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the
Tom Walker wrote:
Roger Odisio wrote,
The clearest way to see the effect . . .
The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the strict sense
Roger Odisio wrote,
An electricity price reduction is the same thing as a lump sum rebate in
this context; each has the same effect on disposable income.
No. The lump-sum rebate in your example was without regard to levels of
consumption. The poor consumer received the same $200 as the rich
Tom Walker:
Roger Odisio wrote,
An electricity price reduction is the same thing as a lump sum rebate in
this context; each has the same effect on disposable income.
No. The lump-sum rebate in your example was without regard to levels of
consumption. The poor consumer received the same
Roger Odisio wrote,
mean between $10,000 and $15,000--the last bit of bullshit you used to
avoid addressing which tax system I posited was more progressive.)
Getting testy now, are we?
Max has an income of $100. Roger has an income of $10. I give Max $2
Over on LBO they're arguing about who is
more psychotic. I think both sides are
winning. So this debate compares
well. I would be sorry to see either TW
or RO go. Neither of them has called me
an insect yet.
On the substance of the matter . . . TW said:
Max has an income of $100. Roger has
Max, you butterfly, you. I would agree that the outcome in the example you
give seems "less unappealing". That is perhaps because we can imagine what
it is like to have an income of $10,000 and what it would feel like to get
a $1000 boost. We can also imagine how unimportant a $2000 windfall
