Tax breaks for businesses vs. tax breaks for the poor.
Jul 3rd, 2007 by Daniel Z.
Which one of those two is more important to you?
A recent article on KLFY discusses the congressman’s displeasure at the current legislative session. The article only mentions one areas that the Congressman felt was a positive (teacher pay raises) and doesn’t mention any of the other items that got passed as being “good things”.
Jindal apparently pointed out two big missed opportunities; ethics reform and tax breaks for businesses.
We have already discussed Jindal’s hypocrisy on ethics reform so lets not go there (for now). On tax breaks for business, I will point out that they did pass tax breaks for the working poor.
So let me get this straight, according to this article Congressman Jindal does not view tax breaks for the working poor as a positive for the legislative session BUT he views the lack of tax breaks for businesses as a “missed opportunity”?
Does that mean that if Congressman Jindal is elected Governor that we will see less tax breaks for the working poor and more tax breaks for businesses? Too bad for the working poor, I guess Jindal could just say “let them eat cake” (I doubt he would look good in a corset though).
(6 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
When the so-call “poor” get off their asses and start paying taxes, then and only then, should we talk about tax-break.
Are we talking about the “poor” that can afford a car, auto insurance, a celluar phone, an iPod, cable and flat screen television.
Are we talking about the “poor” that lives in an air conditioned home with a two hundred a month electric bill, because they’re to lazy to cut the A C back or turn off the lights when they home.
The “poor” that eats out at McDonald’s, Church’s Chicken and Golden Coral. Are we talking about the “poor” that can afford a case or beer a week and street drugs and partying on the week-ends.
Hey road runner, if you read the article you would understand that it was talking about the working poor. WORKING POOR. I.E. people who are not on their “asses” but people who are actually working to support their family and live paycheck to paycheck without having any money to put away into savings or retirement.
I find it odd that you would group having a cell phone and a flat screen with a car and insurance. People who WORK tend to need transportation. And if public transportation is not available between where they work and where they live, then they would have to drive a car (which would require that they buy insurance). And sometimes a cell phone can be cheaper than home phone service.
You make a lot of assumptions and seem to speak very poorly of people labeled “working poor”. Im sure there are SOME people who do as you say, who are lazy and run up huge bills, who spend money on “recreational activities” instead of saving it for a rainy day. But guess what? There are also many people who are part of the working poor who are responsible, who do try and better themselves but who are over taxed. Those people deserve a tax break and from how the article reported it, Jindal did not agree with THOSE tax cuts (since according to the article they only made the exception for the teacher pay raises). However, he saw a missed opportunity to cut taxes on businesses?
I would rather a governor that cuts taxes for working people than someone who will cut taxes for big business.
What you mean is people who have a job, but spend more than they earn.
These are people that had a good chance of getting an education and didn’t. Now they all want to live high of the hog, and can’t afford the new car they bought, auto insurance is high because their credit is screwed. They all have a celluar phone, an iPod, cable and flat screen television. Now because they need, because they want it.
Warren Buffet admits US Tax System is screwed: in 2006, he paid 18% on $46 Million Income, his Secretary 30% on $60,000
The sad thing not told here is that his 46 milion was just his taxable income. There are so many loopholes in the tax code for people of capital that most of their income is not registered. Kind of like our income does not reflect our 401k contributions and intrests.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece?print=yes
Warren Buffet admits US Tax System is screwed: in 2006, he paid 18% on $46 Million Income, his Secretary 30% on $60,000
The sad thing not told here is that his 46 milion was just his taxable income. There are so many loopholes in the tax code for people of capital that most of their income is not registered. Kind of like our income does not reflect our 401k contributions and intrests.
“What you mean is people who have a job, but spend more than they earn. ”
No, I don’t mean that at all. What I mean is people who have a job, spend what they have, and dont have any EXTRA to save towards a retirement. People who live paycheck to paycheck who can afford all that which they have for daily necessities but who would risk financial ruin if a big life event took place.
“These are people that had a good chance of getting an education and didn’t. ”
Says who? Wow, you are being very presumptuous.
“Now they all want to live high of the hog, and can’t afford the new car they bought, auto insurance is high because their credit is screwed. They all have a celluar phone, an iPod, cable and flat screen television. Now because they need, because they want it. ”
These are NOT the people I am talking about. But this is typical republican tactics. Villify the poor as a justification to not provide them with the help they might need to stop becoming poor and instead, give the wealthy more in tax breaks under the false assumption that it will “trickle down”.
Pathetic.
RoadRunner, you are either being purposefully dense or you are woefully misled. Do you honestly believe that poverty ONLY exists in America because people are too lazy to work or don’t know how to budget their money or whatever? Why don’t you do the math yourself? Try figuring out how to support a family on minimum wage or slightly above it. It’s a shame that Republicans like you have banished shame from your lives by buying into this idea. Not only are you comfortable not having compassion for the poor, you actually get angry at them because they are poor. I guess your anger is the tiny bit of compassion left in your soul that’s trying desperately to get out. Why don’t you do something constructive - try turning off Rush Limbaugh and reading a few books. I’d start with Nickled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. You won’t do any of this, of course. I know you’re type, and am looking forward to reading another post about plasma screen TVs and Ipods.
Ah, I never fail to enjoy watching people ehine about someone having more than they do, how having ‘more’ somehow means the haver is part of a huge conspiracy that spends all of its time oppressing the whining non-haver. Poverty exits, has always existed, and will continue to exist until the biological basis for success is found and eradicated. At that point we’ll all be equally poor and the whiners will have to find something else to whine about. In the mantime I’m going back out there, applying myself to earning as comfortable a living as I can, and trying to pass on as much of that wealth to my children as I can so that future Democrats will have host to feed off of.
Lee: Saying that the poor should have tax breaks before businesses do is not whining about the rich having more money.