Regressive

Ivanka Trump's plan for tax relief for child-care is being
labelled as expensive and regressive. What is at issue here.
Expensive, I don't know; this has to be measured against returns.
Regressive; there are ways atound this charge. Indeed, the whole
federal election detate in Canada which brought Justin Trudeau to power
is an exercise in handling the issue.

Going back: he promised to ease things for the middle-class. Let us read
in here, couples who work and pay taxes. A regressive tax hurts the poor more,
and a regressive benefit pays the riche more. If one taxes cigarettes, that extra .50
represents a greater share of disposable income for a poor individual. Should this
stop us from proceeding. If one allows deductions for child-care, nanny parents
may get more help. Is this, ipso facto, unacceptable. Helping  middle class couples
order their work lives could be something one wants to do for a whole range of
reasons. As an example, Britains anticipates some shortages in the workforce as
EU migrants leave the country. Would better child-care help.

The point here is that regressive is a red-flag word, to better analyse
the situation, to see if there are provisions for everyone. But being clear on
goals and timelines is the bottom line.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-pushing-her-500-070000617.html