Re:Distressed by Baby Controversy, AOL’s Armstrong Reverses ...
by jrockway on Sunday February 09, 2014 @11:52AM
(#7206044)
Wouldn't she just get paid less with immunity from taxes? Why would her employer pay her twice as much as everyone else?
Re:Distressed by Baby Controversy, AOL’s Armstrong Reverses ...
by fennecfoxen on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:03PM
(#7206079)
Well, if you'd like to be obtuse and miss the point: the difference would presumably be split between employer and employee in a manner determined by the price elasticity of supply and the price elasticity of demand. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
Consider working mothers in two-income families. Consider those who quit work to spend more time with the kids. Do you think that maybe there's one of these women who, if she were granted immunity from taxes and made an extra 50% in take-home pay, would choose differently?
The rest of the reductio-ad-absurdam is left as an exercise to the reader. I'll remind the reader we seem to be dealing with a hypothetical redistribution of such a scope that we must lift the third world out of poverty before we can spend money on our own kid's cancer treatment or whatever.