TDB | 'Fallacy of the Day'

The New York Times editorial writers made this argument today:

Governments in developing countries say they must shield the poor from high energy prices. They worry that eliminating [oil] subsidies might lead to inflation at a time when prices are rising broadly. But these subsidies are misguided and mainly benefit the well-off, who own big cars and fly in jets, as well as energy-intensive industries, which are not usually those that create most jobs.

Surely the New York Times (a liberal rag, I've heard) should be more honest about what effects subsidy reduction has on the poor. By saying certain companies and certain rich people 'mainly benefit' by the subsidies that are in place, they imply that, if those subsidies were removed, said certain people and companies would feel the most 'pain'. In fact, the poor work within much smaller financial margins than companies - and have significantly fewer options and resources when it comes to rearranging expenses. Something similar applies for the well-off. If the subsidies were removed, most rich people companies would find ways to make due, though they would not be happy about it. For less well-off individuals, however, the removal would in a great many cases be life changing. Countless people would finally and fatally descend from their long-held but precarious perch just above the poverty line to become a statistic among the poor.

Note: contrary to what one might assume, I do am not a subsidy-supporter. Rather, I understand and acknowledge the difficulty in removing them once they are in place.