Skip to main content

View Diary: Stewart to O'Reilly: Why Are Tax Break Recipients Viewed as "Savvy" & Welfare Recipients "Moochers"? (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  speaking of false equivalencies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Cortez

    The question is one
    Avoiding something not the same as getting something

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:22:09 AM PDT

    •  Avoiding taxes (10+ / 0-)

      is indeed getting something for free.

      It's like shoplifting from Walmart.  You receive government services and benefits all the time.  If you're rich, you benefit disproportionately from courts and police, for example.  

      Do you whine at the checkout line when the cashier asks you to pay for those tube socks?  Do you hire a bunch of expensive accountants and lawyers and lobbyists to figure out ways to get tube socks at way below cost?  Everyone paying full price then subsidizes your warm feet.

      •  I'm at the 35 percent bracket. (0+ / 0-)

        I take enough deductions to push my liability under 21 percent.  I don't think I'm using government services more than say one of my employees.  So what am I getting for free?

        •  I trust you are not paying 13% (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          on $20 million in income, nor have $100 million in an IRA, nor support further cutting the rates of millionaires at the expense of the middle class.

          I was responding to the thought that is is falsely equivalent to compare R complaints about welfare moochers with R support for truly lopsided tax policy.  Jon Stewart's point was entirely fair:  welfare "takers" hardly worse than tax scheme takers, than tax loophole supporters.

          •  Not even close. (0+ / 0-)

            But it is a false equivalence.  13 percent on 20 million is $2.6 million.  US per capita federal spending is $13,000.  I don't think Mitt Romney is using 2000 percent more government services than I am, much less considerably more than that to say that he's stealing government services.

            I've never been comfortable with "fairness" arguments for more progressive taxation.  I prefer practical arguments based on the ability to contribute to the cost of our shared prosperity. And based on the demonstrable detrimental impact poverty has on the economy in particular and income inequality has overall.

            Fortunately, the line went over well and O'Reilly didn't have a response.

    •  I noticed this as well. (0+ / 0-)

      Would've been better if Stewart made a point on regressivity in the tax code.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site