Bloomberg: Taxing the Poor is Good Because They'll Have Less Money to Hurt Themselves

[tenderfoot]

“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”

― Herman Melville

Now that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced his candidacy for president, he is -- of course -- fair game. And yes, that's great for us with a working memory. After all, there have been many times when Bloomberg proved himself to be an extremely arrogant member of the Know-It-All elite. Case in point? Just watch this video in which Bloomberg basically explains that it's a great idea to tax the poor because higher taxes mean they have less money to hurt themselves. Or something.

"[Some] say, well, 'taxes are regressive.' But in this case, yes they are, that's the good thing about them," Bloomberg said at the IMF's 2018 Spring Meeting about taxes on sugary drinks and such. "Because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves."

In other words, Bloomberg wants to use taxes to make people behave in a way he thinks is best for them. It's Daddy Michael!

https://pjmedia.com/election/video-bloomberg-taxing-the-poor-is-good-because-theyll-have-less-money-to-hurt-themselves/

[raging moderate]

1. .

Hey. Maybe, if we work it right, Michael Bloomberg could draw some votes away from Trump/any Republican nominee.

[Demsrule86]

4. That wouldn't make up for the voters we lose if he is the nominee...stop and frisk is

the worst.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. He is from the Class of Clueless.

[Amishman]

30. yup, no place for billionaires on the ballot

He needs to be heavily encouraged to drop out by anyone in the party who can bend his ear

do
not
want

[Demsrule86]

3. Do we live in a free country or not...I really never liked Bloomberg...sure he has done some good

since leaving the Mayor job but I would only vote for him in a general

[Beakybird]

5. This is an outlandish distortion.

No Bloomberg fan here, but your mischaracterization of his philosophy of a soda tax is Fox like. Pure propaganda IMO.
Btw, I think Bloomberg is smug, and he's next to last in line for me in front of Tulsi.

[vsrazdem]

14. Well, it may be about soda, but from what I heard, he is basically saying that if poor people

have too much money, they don't make good decisions. That's it in a nutshell.

[groundloop]

19. No, that's not what he said.... he was suggesting a sugar tax.....

be more effective on those with a lower income because it made up a bigger portion of their expendable wages.

Even though I'm no fan of Bloomberg and wish he'd go away I despise when someone twists what was said into their own version of reality.

[vsrazdem]

25. Well that is what I heard.

[Blue_true]

37. He didn't say that. nt

[Blue_true]

36. Yes it was. nt

[George II]

6. No he didn't say that.

[raging moderate]

7. .

Could somebody maybe trick Bloomberg into a third-party run? Or maybe a write-in campaign that would draw away some Republicon voters? I think most of them could learn to spell his name (at least his last name).

[dsc]

23. yeah that would be a fantastic idea

the huge hordes of pro gun control, pro choice, pro gay rights GOPers will be lining up to vote for him.

[abqtommy]

8. Hey TOXIC ALGAE BLOOMberg, we don't need tRUMP and we don't need you!

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2019, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

[Tiggeroshii]

27. Agreed.

[JoeOtterbein]

9. Oh no!

My nightmares are coming true!

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I know I will get pilloried

pilloried for saying this, but he doesn't pass my confidence test. I just don't believe what he says.

[ChubbyStar]

12. I applaud you!

He doesn't pass my smell test, well heeled but STINKS.

[bluedye33139]

34. I've tried to be positive about his candidacy but failed

My whole mantra for 2020 is to avoid the misery of 2016. I have determined to try to love and respect all Democratic candidates.

Bloomberg is a tough pill to swallow.

[Ohiogal]

11. Sorta like the Jason Chaffetz theory

as to why poor people are poor. They spend too much $ on luxuries like cell phones!

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/7/14841736/chaffetz-says-americans-must-pick-between-iphones-and-healthcare

[dalton99a]

13. And quit giving them food stamps.

Force them to go on a diet

[tetedur]

15. Yeah let them eat cake. n/t

[virgogal]

16. God almighty,I couldn't even finish it------I need a sugary drink. He's an ass.

[Cetacea]

18. Likewise

Unbelievable.

[SWBTATTReg]

17. Bloomberg is still a heck of a lot better than rump is, and will always be. I understand his...

rationale on taxing sugary drinks, was an attempt to try and address a problem on consumption of high calorie drinks, but I always felt that there are better ways to address this particular issue, e.g., educating people on the negative impacts of consuming such drinks, taxing elsewhere instead of at the counter when the drinks are purchased, etc. In conclusion, I don't think that there is a better way to deal w/ this issue (drinks), being that we have a similar problem w/ the consumption of alcohol too, and we still don't really have a 100% handle on this issue either.

At least he tried. I give him credit for this.

[Newest Reality]

20. Well, well, well...

Do we really need more hefty buckets of oligarchical bull saliva spilling all over?

We are on the verge of moving into a true Oligarchy. I can't even begin to trust someone with that much wealth to help us resist that or be of benefit to common folks who are struggling. I will assume he has his allegiance to his class, to which he belongs, one Serfdom under wealth with tax breaks and freedom for those few, and for the profit for which it stands.

Until proven otherwise, oligarchy and democracy are not compatible in the long-run. Do we really want the wealthy few to actually own the globe within a few decades? That's not hyperbole or sensationalist. When you extrapolate the stats based on current trends, then that is exactly where the wealth disparity is leading us.

No thanks on Bloomberg. We need someone who is going to avert the oligarchy not help slide it in with clarified butter on a platinum serving dish with truffles. Sheesh! Haven't we learned anything yet?

[ChubbyStar]

22. Indeed!

[EarlG]

21. Uh...

I’m not coming in here to specifically defend Bloomberg, but...

In other words, Bloomberg wants to use taxes to make people behave in a way he thinks is best for them.

Isn’t that, like, how tax policy is supposed to work? In general?

[George II]

24. Thanks for weighing in here. The title of the OP grossly misrepresents what Bloomberg actually said.

[The Valley Below]

26. No kidding!

[grantcart]

29. +1 it's an outrageous distortion

America s at war with it's pancreas and one of the thing I do support is his efforts to reduce sugar in take by soda. He should be applauded for it and his effort to eliminate the 64 ounce big gulp which basically is equivalent to a week's recommended amount if sugar

[I_UndergroundPanther]

33. No.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. The DNC should already have publicly told him to go to hell

[Blue_true]

35. You took his view on a very narrow issue that affects the poor and blew it out of

proportion. He was talking about poor people consuming inexpensive, high calorie sugary drinks. He is right, there is a problem in this area, as there is with eating fatty food.

The solution to the two problems is very complex, it involves growing and distributing far less expensive nutritious food and drink, and teaching people how to prepare delicious meals from foods that normally taste bland when prepared incorrectly.

But unfortunately the solutions can't be expanded on in an answer to a question, so only soundbites that people can distort come out.

Gun violence affects poor people disproportionately, Bloomberg has been a major player in righting that. Why don't you do an OP on that?