nrook
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
This, of course, applies just as much to the actual topic of the Economist article; new inheritance taxes are just and good, but they should be written to be enforceable, and then they should actually be enforced.
Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment.
(It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)
Doing some light Googling, this seemed to be a good writeup by an academic on the subject: https://piccionep.people.cofc.edu/senet_web.html
You can negotiate alone, but you have much less bargaining power that way. There's a reason the big tech companies all work together on their side of this negotiation (colluding with other employers to lower salaries, all doing layoffs at the same time, etc.): it works.
If you work for a company like Amazon, and you don't want to be laid off, the only thing you can do to move the needle is join a union. (You can also be a top performer, but it's not clear how big of a difference that makes; top performers with big salaries make big targets for layoffs as well.)