• EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know the exact proportion but it is meant to be painful but not debilitating no matter your degree of wealth. Yes, it’s fundamentally more consequential to lower incomes, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the system we have in the US.

    Edit: autocorrect

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree it’s better, but the impact on someone’s life should be the same. Otherwise, you disproportionately target the poor.

      • EvilBit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the entire point of it being wealth-proportionate. To hit everyone hard enough that it hurts without crushing them.