We Can't Discourage Working. Unless You're Rich.

I was just reading Jim DeMint's (R-SC) comments about reducing the deficit while permanently extending the Bush tax cuts. Leaving aside the fact that these two goals are completely inimical to each other, there was this lovely quote:

We can't just keep paying people to stay at home. We've got to create economic activity to allow businesses to grow so they can hire people.

(tip o' the cap: ThinkProgress)

Apparently, what he actually means is that you can't keep paying poor people to stay at home. But if you're rich, you should always be encouraged to do so, via taxing your capital gains (which generally don't require you to work outside the home) much less than taxes on labor (which usually does).

Granted, that's usually not a strict either/or option, but with those incentives, which is going to get more of your attention?

On the other hand, if you're poor and undereducated (remember, the unemployment rate, right now, for college grads is still less than five percent, which is generally considered "full employment"), it's too expensive to make sure you can keep your home and feed your family. No matter how long you've been working beforehand, and paying into unemployment insurance.

Because homeless people find it so much easier to find employment.

Does South Carolina have no poor people, or do they just not vote?