Why Do the Poor Continue to Defend Tax Breaks for the Rich?

Opinion • August 2011 • Views: 2,512

Why do the Poor Continue to Defend tax Breaks for the Rich
by Cory McCray

Sometimes I just don’t understand why there is always a financially struggling college kid, a low wage worker, or a middle class citizen that feel as though they have to go out of their way to defend tax breaks for the rich. At least once a month I find one person that wants to argue against their own interest and it continues to baffle me.

Their argument is always that government can’t tax or has to cut taxes for large corporations or millionaires so that they can invest in the economy and create jobs. My first question for them is ‘Have you ever heard of General Electric?’ Here is a corporation that paid zero dollars ($0.00) in corporate taxes, and received a tax benefit of 3.2 billion dollars…

Continue reading.

Recent Pages by Gus 802 (Gus):
Mark Landler of the New York Times Fabricates Obama Quote: Awaiting Clarification Alfred E. Snowden: I Stole 160k Emails but Forgot to Save My NSA Whistleblower Emails Tea Party Leader Victoria Jackson Falls for Fake/Satire News Site, National Report Republican Presidents and Soccer Ari Fleischer: Obama Decision on Iraq is Right One (2011)

Jump to bottom

23 comments

HappyWarrior Sun, Aug 14, 2011 1:38:04pm

Baffles me too.

Atlas Fails Sun, Aug 14, 2011 2:18:45pm

CLASS WARFARE!!!1!!11ty

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Aug 14, 2011 3:20:42pm

Stockholm Syndrome

ElCapitanAmerica Sun, Aug 14, 2011 5:03:26pm

You do know GE had legit tax deductions because of the amount of loses GE capital incurred?

However you raise valid questions. My guess is these people are deluded into thinking they'll be super rich in the future.

celticdragon Sun, Aug 14, 2011 7:16:40pm

re: #4 ElCapitanAmerica

You do know GE had legit tax deductions because of the amount of loses GE capital incurred?

However you raise valid questions. My guess is these people are deluded into thinking they'll be super rich in the future.

Of course they were "legit".

They got away with it and nobody is in prison...ergo, it must be legal.

Doesn't make it right, however...

right_wing2 Sun, Aug 14, 2011 7:53:27pm

What we need is a flat tax rate for businesses of about 20% and for individuals of about 17% after exemptions (10k for the first person, 7.5k for each additional family member).

TampaKnight Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:08:57pm

Thanks for this post.

I almost forgot for a second that I'm supposed to hate rich people.

garhighway Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:15:40pm

Didn't Thomas Frank write a book about this a while back: "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

My take is that this shouldn't be that hard to get: not everyone (or even most people) vote economics first, and many on both sides of the aisle vote contrary to their individual economic self interest. I know I do. I'm a Dem, but am one of the people that thinks upper bracket taxes (on me, among millions of others) ought to go up. By backing the Dem position, I am supporting raising my tax bill.

b_sharp Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:21:22pm

re: #7 TampaKnight

Thanks for this post.

I almost forgot for a second that I'm supposed to hate rich people.

Asking the wealthy to contribute according to their ability is equivalent to hate? Logic isn't your strong point is it?

You do have the ideologue sarcasm down well.

right_wing2 Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:21:42pm

How is it in my self interest to have someone else's taxes go up? Aren't we all better off with limiting taxes on everyone, and having a government that lives within its means?

If I find my bank account is a little low, I have to spend less. Government needs to start focusing on what is HAS to do, not on what it WANTS to do.

Interesting Times Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:22:15pm

re: #3 000G

Stockholm Syndrome

That plus scapegoating. Here's the complete comment from where I get the quote in my LGF profile:

The right-wing resentment he’s trying to stir up will probably work pretty well among a certain part of the population, ironically those who have been most hurt by the conmen and tricksters of Wall Street.

When Santelli says "those people" are getting a free handout from the government, we all know who he’s talking about. He’s not talking about YOU, white blue collar Joe, he’s talking about the shiftless lazy n***ers who got more government welfare in the form of subprime loans from Freddie and Fannie. It’s them lowlife blacks who are causing our problems, white middle class America! Get the rope!

Same as it always was. Turn the angry mob against the poorest and the least able to defend themselves, while you pick the mob’s pockets.

Has it ever NOT worked in this country?

It was written by a Balloon Juice commenter back in Feb 2009, but just becomes more and more relevant every day :(

garhighway Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:26:38pm

re: #10 right_wing2

How is it in my self interest to have someone else's taxes go up? Aren't we all better off with limiting taxes on everyone, and having a government that lives within its means?

If I find my bank account is a little low, I have to spend less. Government needs to start focusing on what is HAS to do, not on what it WANTS to do.

It is in your self interest that the US government achieve the right balance of revenues and expenditures, is it not? I would think it is in the interests of all of us.

The vast majority of mainstream economists think that austerity policies right now are a bad idea and that the economy can stand some revenue raising. Wouldn't it be in your self-interest as a citizen to see those policies happen rather than policies that risk a double-dip recession?

right_wing2 Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:38:35pm

re: #12 garhighway

It's in everyone's best interest to have a government that lives within its means. It's not in everyone's best interest to have a government that simply throws money endlessly at programs which have been proven to fail year after year, especially when those programs are part of the reason for the economic collapse we're in now. The solution is to put real cuts in place, not simply slow the rate of growth.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to opt out of Social Security, take the 12-14% home myself and invest. And if I don't have enough to retire on, that's my problem, not yours.

garhighway Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:44:21pm

re: #13 right_wing2

It's in everyone's best interest to have a government that lives within its means. It's not in everyone's best interest to have a government that simply throws money endlessly at programs which have been proven to fail year after year, especially when those programs are part of the reason for the economic collapse we're in now. The solution is to put real cuts in place, not simply slow the rate of growth.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to opt out of Social Security, take the 12-14% home myself and invest. And if I don't have enough to retire on, that's my problem, not yours.

You miss the point. Forcing the US government to a balanced budget right now is economic madness: that would be a contractary move at a time when the recovery is fragile. The timing sucks. I agree, as do most Americans, that we need to get revenues and expenditures back in balance over time. And like me, most Americans think that making a fetish over current tax rates is stupid. These is no good argument for ignoring the revenue side of the ledger.

Now, moving on to your comment on "the reason for the economic collapse", I am dying to hear your thoughts on THAT one. Please, elaborate.

garhighway Sun, Aug 14, 2011 8:46:42pm

re: #14 garhighway

You miss the point. Forcing the US government to a balanced budget right now is economic madness: that would be a contractionary (if that's a word) move at a time when the recovery is fragile. The timing sucks. I agree, as do most Americans, that we need to get revenues and expenditures back in balance over time. And like me, most Americans think that making a fetish over current tax rates is stupid. These is no good argument for ignoring the revenue side of the ledger.

Now, moving on to your comment on "the reason for the economic collapse", I am dying to hear your thoughts on THAT one. Please, elaborate.

Fixed. Sorry.

ElCapitanAmerica Sun, Aug 14, 2011 9:03:04pm

re: #5 celticdragon

What do you mean "It doesn't make it right"?

So you don't think a company or an individual should take a deduction when they lose money???

garhighway Sun, Aug 14, 2011 9:04:21pm

re: #16 ElCapitanAmerica

What do you mean "It doesn't make it right"?

So you don't think a company or an individual should take a deduction when they lose money???

Did GE lose money? I seem to recall that they made a lot of money.

Interesting Times Sun, Aug 14, 2011 9:19:12pm

Speaking of money, here's something allowing certain people here to puts theirs where their mouth is:

You Fix the Budget

Interactive tool. Go on. Use it. Tell us exactly what you'd cut in order to balance the budget without raising taxes at all. Then explain, in detail, the short- and -long term economic and social impacts it would have.

Bob Dillon Sun, Aug 14, 2011 11:17:35pm

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army and Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Aug 15, 2011 12:39:21am

re: #7 TampaKnight

Thanks for this post.

I almost forgot for a second that I'm supposed to hate rich people.

thank god we have you to contribute to LGF, what would we do without you

Gus Mon, Aug 15, 2011 1:06:25am

re: #7 TampaKnight

Thanks for this post.

I almost forgot for a second that I'm supposed to hate rich people.

That wasn't McCray's point. And judging from my past experience with you I won't even attempt to explain. Go ahead and keeping thinking what's fed to you by the ~~war mongering~~ [oops] Republican Party propaganda machine.

aagcobb Mon, Aug 15, 2011 5:45:24am

re: #7 TampaKnight

Thanks for this post.

I almost forgot for a second that I'm supposed to hate rich people.

Its not about hating rich people. Its about the fact that an economy in which all the economic growth benefits only a tiny elite while everyone else struggles is dysfunctional. Did you see Warren Buffet's comments? Do you think he hates himself?

Jimmi the Grey Mon, Aug 15, 2011 12:00:18pm

re: #10 right_wing2