Yes that&#x27;s true. It&#x27;s a very simplified, guaranteed to be wrong, calculation. But it gets us past the first order objections (&quot;it&#x27;s too expensive we couldn&#x27;t afford it&quot;) to the second order objections (&quot;the reduced incentives to work would crash the economy&quot;). If you have a model for dynamic effects, I&#x27;m all ears.<p>Incidentally, from the linked comment:<p><i>The level of &quot;afford&quot; I&#x27;m thinking of is a scenario where the USA suffers zero productivity loss and the middle &amp; upper class do not see a decline in the standard of living.</i><p>This seems an unreasonable standard to apply to anything. Hardly any policy is a Pareto improvement. Applying such a tough standard amounts to very strong status quo bias.