The idea is not of a stimulus purely on the consumption side, but on the side of investment as well. That is why it is usefull to reimburse the afffluent, because they tend to find investment instruments for extra cash. And, I must say, you underestimate how much even the affluent might be influenced by additional income, since many of their resources are tied up in stocks, bonds, and real estate, and are not earmarked for consumption.
I have tried to be reasonable with you, and you choose to respond abusively. "Equitable" does not mean "mindlessly equal", it means "fair". On your account, it is inequitable to have a sale where all get the same percentage off the final bill, because those who spend more save more. But, of course, it is not unfair, it is merely a reasonable business practice to move merchandise throughout the store. Indeed, even the affluent maximize their purchasing power by responding to sales, and they are likely to spend more, so it might be good policy to give them the extra discount. But no matter, it is not an ethical matter, it is a policy matter, as is the tax reduction. |
