Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid, > whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive > to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive. >
That is true, and important. Many wealthy people work hard even though they do not need the money, but they seldom do useless busy-work. Except for playing golf. > if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained > people in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern > industry, deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low > competence workers in rich countries . . . > Good point. > people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not > deserving the subsidies. > Well, for people who don't get the subsidies. "Deserving" is not the issue. The U.S. tax system subsidizes home owners. That is unfair to people who rent apartments and houses. In other words, for every economic action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is not the so-called "law of unintended consequences." In most cases we see the consequences, including deleterious ones, but we decide it is worth the cost. - Jed
