Unemployment benefits, and other forms of income support, as you say, are far more effective than tax cuts, even when they are said to be for the the benefit of the poor. (Unless they're talking about doing away with sales and vat taxes and replacing them with more highly progressive income tax regimes, which I doubt.) Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I'd ad aide to the state and local governments in America's case, since that will save jobs directly within those governments as well as keep services up and running, which keeps other jobs going and provides for the general welfare of communities. States and locals generally have balanced-budget amendments, so when things go to shit, they get slammed. Similarly, but going the other way, they spend big during booms. This is, of course, the opposite of how it should work. It's completely insane, but it's nonetheless the reality of the system.
Sales taxes in the states are set by the state governments, and local governments add to the rate for their cut, so the feds can't really do anything about those. Those are already somewhat progressive, because essentials are generally not taxed, but I agree that progressive income taxes are better than sales taxes.
If you were going to design tax cuts to maximize the impact, you'd want to do them on people at or below (say) $45k/year, and give rebates to those below the threshold under which they don't pay income taxes. You could also jack up, for example, the Earned-Income Tax Credit or other negative-taxation mechanisms. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
