The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[TPIG]

Progressives supporting a regressive tax on the poor!

Exactly!

One of my favorite exchanges on Atlas, though.

Was I wrong? That was indeed an example of so-called "champions of the poor" supporting a tax that would disproportionately hurt the poor.

[TPIG]

Progressives supporting a regressive tax on the poor!

Exactly!

One of my favorite exchanges on Atlas, though.

Was I wrong? That was indeed an example of so-called "champions of the poor" supporting a tax that would disproportionately hurt the poor.

1) It seems as if Atlas progressives are largely divided on the issue, hence it is not "indeed an example". Folks like Intell, bagelman, MB, weatherboy1102, JGibson, Skunk, Kamala, and myself are all progressives who are against the soda tax, specifically for the reason that it disproportionately hurts the poor. The conservative opposition against the soda tax is largely for a different reason - the principle of being against increased taxation.

2) The folks who do generally advocate for a soda tax tend to be more economically centrist and/or neoliberal. Michael Bloomberg comes to mind. Remind me when someone like Sanders advocated for a soda tax?

3) It really is rich that someone with a Mitt Romney signature is trying to lampoon progressivism as being dismissive of the plight of the poor.

1. I was not saying all progressives support that tax, but rather that those on the forum supporting it were progressives. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Also, conservatives oppose soda taxes for three reasons - they raise taxes, they limit personal freedom, AND they hurt the poor.

2. I see what you're saying, and I perhaps should have been a bit more more careful in my wording. However, I don't think that the main dividing line on support for this tax is between neo-liberals and those with far-left economic views but rather between people who are more populist minded and technocratically minded. The two (populism and far left economic views don't always go hand in hand).

3. Mitt Romney has done more in his personal life to help the poor and downtrodden than most people could ever hope to do. The 47% comment was him essentially saying that he understands that Democrats have an inherent advantage with poorer voters, as they offer more programs and benefits. That does not mean he wouldn't have pursued policies that would help poor Americans as president. Anyway, I'll stop relitigating the 2012 election now. :*

[TPIG]

3. Mitt Romney has done more in his personal life to help the poor and downtrodden than most people could ever hope to do. The 47% comment was him essentially saying that he understands that Democrats have an inherent advantage with poorer voters, as they offer more programs and benefits. That does not mean he wouldn't have pursued policies that would help poor Americans as president. Anyway, I'll stop relitigating the 2012 election now. :*

I'm kind of curious what the effect of his business decisions would be vs his philanthropy and such. I see the argument used a lot when talking about wealthy people (even from themselves) - that they've done more to help the poor than x y or z. What isn't usually mentioned is what their effect has been in the other direction. There are plenty of CEOs whose business decisions could have put a lot of people out of work, or for the pharma industry, put burdensome debt on millions of people solely for more profits. I'm sure there are/have been some wealthy corporate CEOs whose philanthropy pails in comparison to the hurt they have caused.

I'm not entirely sure what Bain Capital did. Didn't they break up / sell off companies?

Bain engages in investment and consultation operations with companies around the country. Yes, some companies ended up firing people or closing, but such is the nature of creative destruction in eliminating inefficient businesses. You have to also consider the fact that the destruction under Romney's watch at Bain pales in comparison to the creation under his watch. They invested in and helped Staples, the Sports Authority, and Steel Dynamics (now the 5th largest carbon-steel producer in the US) grow and become successful, creating tens of thousands of jobs in the process.

[TPIG]

No. If implemented immediately and arbitrarily, it would be a death knell for many small businesses with thin profit margins, would price unskilled, often poorer workers out of the marketplace, and lead to higher prices for consumers. This is another example of a well-intended policy that would have nearly the opposite effect it was meant to have - improving the economic outcomes of the poor and vulnerable.

Great job rebutting my point.