Is that true? I don't know much about macroeconomics but it seems to me that even though these folks aren't earning at their full potential, the jobs are being done by someone.
In other words, if these folks were earning more, someone else wouldn't be doing that job, so the overall earning that the set number of jobs would support wouldn't change one way or the other from the tax revenue point of view.
(Not advocating for or against these folks being able to work at their full potential, just trying to look at the tax revenue argument objectively).
In other words, if these folks were earning more, someone else wouldn't be doing that job, so the overall earning that the set number of jobs would support wouldn't change one way or the other from the tax revenue point of view.
(Not advocating for or against these folks being able to work at their full potential, just trying to look at the tax revenue argument objectively).