So it’s the amount you care about, not the method of the incentive.
The original comment is about the method of the incentive, and pointing out that even though the us incentive doesn’t have the same value as other countries, the method is at least not directly giving that incentive to corporations, hoping they’ll “do the right thing”(hint, they won’t)
Amount shouldn’t matter in regards to the system, but You have a point there, a person does not incur tax debt unless they’re claiming earnings.
And you have to claim enough earnings to actually file for a refund, that can partially or fully “cancel” the meager incentive.
I am/was ignorant on the current state of incentives in S.Korea, if it actually is direct payment, the current system is indeed better than the US system. But without a doubt what their leader proposed is worse.
So it’s the amount you care about, not the method of the incentive.
The original comment is about the method of the incentive, and pointing out that even though the us incentive doesn’t have the same value as other countries, the method is at least not directly giving that incentive to corporations, hoping they’ll “do the right thing”(hint, they won’t)
Providing the incentive as tax credit inherently ties the benefit to employment, just not as much as the clown proposal in OP.
My understanding that base Korea benefit is done via direct transfer, which is the proper method for such things.
Amount shouldn’t matter in regards to the system, but You have a point there, a person does not incur tax debt unless they’re claiming earnings. And you have to claim enough earnings to actually file for a refund, that can partially or fully “cancel” the meager incentive.
I am/was ignorant on the current state of incentives in S.Korea, if it actually is direct payment, the current system is indeed better than the US system. But without a doubt what their leader proposed is worse.
We are deff aligned then!!