Here is an interesting thought for the left side. Of course there is the argument that if people acted more responsible and cut down massively on their expenses and such, and stopped spending as much. And it makes plenty of sense, I'm not being sarcastic or anything and that is of course what you should do. But when that many people cut back that much, it could have a negative effect on the economy, and when you think about all the people not working both the unemployment rate and the actual unemployment rate which is much higher, so those people having 500 or 300 dollars less a week, and that much less money going into the economy, will have a negative effect I think. But then again you could also argue that, if we didn't have an unemployment tax, and that money wasn't taken out of peoples checks in the first place, that money would go into the economy. BUT if we keep the tax on the upper incomes higher, their spending habits will of course not be effected by having that taken out of their income, while the extra money going to the middle will help those people unemployed keep spending without having a large negative effect as a large part of it would come from the top, but then that comes to a rights/moral argument of sorts, as is it ok to do pure wealth redistribution? tax the top and let the people on the bottom spend it? The argument could be made for that.