There's a new Michael Bloomberg video on Youtube. "Bloomberg: Taxing the Poor is Good Because They'll Have Less Money to Hurt Themselves."
It's a good title for causing outrage, but it's misleading. Bloomberg is using the example of the sugar tax which helped reduce the amount of soda consumption in poor neighborhoods...which is good b/c soda leads to high rates of obesity and diabetes.
Still, it is surreal that a billionaire is talking about regressive taxes as a way to stop poor people from harming themselves...and he is NOT talking about progressive taxes to stop billionaires from destroying the economy as they did in 2008 or a progressive real estate tax to stop urban blight which is what's going on in NYC and many other cities around the country that have blocks of empty storefronts because of greedy landowners. Or bringing back the inheritance tax to stop one of the most dangerous aspects of wealth...that most of it in this country has not been earned, but passed down. Inherited wealth unbalances a society, leads to stagnation of growth and ideas, triggers class inequality, corrupts the wealthy, and leads to social decay. That was the purpose of the inheritance tax...it was a penalty to stop rich people from acting in a way that harmed society.
I'm all in favor of a good penalty tax to discourage sociopaths, predators, and bad actors. But is there any doubt that a billionaire acting in bad faith can do A LOT more damage to society than a poor person who will mostly hurt themselves through bad lifestyle choices (soda, smoking, drinking alcohol, etc)? Therefore shouldn't most social-based taxes be aimed at people like...Bloomberg. Now that would be a great platform for a billionaire. The wealthy asshole tax...to prevent sociopathic behavior in uber-wealthy irresponsible, dangerously corrupt ppl who wreck cities, markets, and the economy.
Bloomberg, I just gave you something to run on that the avg person could support: the demise of you and your kind.
It's a good title for causing outrage, but it's misleading. Bloomberg is using the example of the sugar tax which helped reduce the amount of soda consumption in poor neighborhoods...which is good b/c soda leads to high rates of obesity and diabetes.
Still, it is surreal that a billionaire is talking about regressive taxes as a way to stop poor people from harming themselves...and he is NOT talking about progressive taxes to stop billionaires from destroying the economy as they did in 2008 or a progressive real estate tax to stop urban blight which is what's going on in NYC and many other cities around the country that have blocks of empty storefronts because of greedy landowners. Or bringing back the inheritance tax to stop one of the most dangerous aspects of wealth...that most of it in this country has not been earned, but passed down. Inherited wealth unbalances a society, leads to stagnation of growth and ideas, triggers class inequality, corrupts the wealthy, and leads to social decay. That was the purpose of the inheritance tax...it was a penalty to stop rich people from acting in a way that harmed society.
I'm all in favor of a good penalty tax to discourage sociopaths, predators, and bad actors. But is there any doubt that a billionaire acting in bad faith can do A LOT more damage to society than a poor person who will mostly hurt themselves through bad lifestyle choices (soda, smoking, drinking alcohol, etc)? Therefore shouldn't most social-based taxes be aimed at people like...Bloomberg. Now that would be a great platform for a billionaire. The wealthy asshole tax...to prevent sociopathic behavior in uber-wealthy irresponsible, dangerously corrupt ppl who wreck cities, markets, and the economy.
Bloomberg, I just gave you something to run on that the avg person could support: the demise of you and your kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment