----Bloomberg touts taxing the poor: 'Do you want to pander to those people?'

[Prosper]

Incredible for a Democratic to take a stand against the poor. He demeans poor people to the level of animals. Taking a stand against the poor is not good.


I do apologize for citing the “Washington Times”. It is public information that Bloomberg wanted to tax or ban sugary drinks starting in 2012. Since it was generic information I paid no notice to the source. I had no knowledge of the Washington Times but being familiar with his banning taxing sugary drinks since 2012 I did not question what was public information. I again apologize for citing a right wing conservative source. My position on everything I have posted is far left progressive. I have absolutely no problem with banning sugary drinks. The only reason they are not banned is pandering to suppliers and vendors. If there is any honesty in concerns for health then sugary drinks would be banned.

[Dream Girl]

1. That is just gross...

[defacto7]

21. It's about taxing tobacco.

Tobacco is used by rich, poor and everyone in between. It's a disingenuous heading.

[marble falls]

34. It isn't as long as we aren't taxing the tobacco companies into the ground.

[Prosper]

82. It is about being regressive to the poor. Any tax to

curb use is regressive to the poor because the tax is a greater percentage of the income of poor people. It applies to any tax on anything because it is always regressive to the poor. The only fair way to control use is by rationing.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. Link, please.

[Prosper]

5. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/29/mike-bloomberg-touts-taxing-po

[Arkansas Granny]

12. That wants to redirect me to a page that no longer exists.

[Squinch]

32. In the Washington Times, no less.

[Sloumeau]

67. This link might work better

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/29/mike-bloomberg-touts-taxing-poor-do-you-want-pande/

[George II]

69. That link doesn't work, but I'm not going to Washington Times anyway.

[crazytown]

7. Found it.

Bloomberg was talking about taxing tobacco.
https://www.devex.com/news/at-spring-meetings-michael-bloomberg-on-sin-taxes-2050-and-ai-92590

[Arkansas Granny]

15. Thanks.

[elleng]

83. Thanks.

'In a one-on-one interview with the International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Bloomberg discussed how NCDs place a particular burden on people with little education and few resources. Tobacco companies, for example, are advertising more and more in places where people are bereft of education to understand how smoking can lead to death, he said.

Bloomberg continues to champion the role of taxes in curbing cancer, obesity, and more, even going so far as to paint it as a life or death situation.

“I listen to people saying, ‘oh, we don’t want to tax the poor.’ Well, we want the poor to live longer so they can get an education and enjoy life. And that’s why you do want to do exactly [that] … The question is: do you want to pander to those people, or do you want them to live longer?” he said.'>>>

[left-of-center2012]

58. From the right-wing Washington Times

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/29/mike-bloomberg-touts-taxing-poor-do-you-want-pande/

Bloomberg touts taxing the poor: 'Do you want to pander to those people?'
The Washington Times - Friday, November 29, 2019

The Washington Times holds a conservative political stance. The Columbia Journalism Review wrote in 1995, "The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve. No major paper in America would dare be so partisan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance,_content_and_controversies

[crazytown]

3. Link?

[crazytown]

4. Bloomberg was talking about taxing tobacco

Bloomberg continues to champion the role of taxes in curbing cancer, obesity, and more, even going so far as to paint it as a life or death situation.

I listen to people saying, ‘oh, we don’t want to tax the poor.’ Well, we want the poor to live longer so they can get an education and enjoy life. And that’s why you do want to do exactly [that] … The question is: do you want to pander to those people, or do you want them to live longer?” he said.

https://www.devex.com/news/at-spring-meetings-michael-bloomberg-on-sin-taxes-2050-and-ai-92590

[Prosper]

8. Former NYC mayor defends hiking taxes on vices like smoking, sugary drinks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/29/mike-bloomberg-touts-taxing-poor-do-you-want-pande/

[The Valley Below]

14. What's Bernie's stand on tobacco and sugary drinks?

[beastie boy]

23. OK... there is a big difference between that and "Bloomberg touts taxing the poor"

Then again, I wouldn't put too much faith in the headlines from right wing media like Washington Times.

[still_one]

27. There sure is. Intentionally misleading

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2019, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[Renew Deal]

52. Intentionally too

[still_one]

54. Thanks

[Prosper]

79. Bloomberg on record for taxing sugary drinks in 2012.

In 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York proposed a tax on sweetened beverages that the New York Court of Appeals struck down. Despite the soda tax's failure, Mayor Bloomberg believed the tax would improve public health. ...

https://www.nclnet.org/soda_tax

[Renew Deal]

80. You're still defending this lie?

Have you apologized for the OP yet?

[Prosper]

81. Point out a lie and I will immediately apologize. Last

thing I would do is perpetuate a lie. All taxes are regressive to poor people. I do apologize for using the quote from the “Washington Times”. I had no knowledge of the Washington Times and must have assumed it was Washington Post. But I have been familiar with Bloomberg wanting to tax and ban sugary drinks from the first time he announced his intentions when he was mayor. That he wanted to tax and or ban sugary drinks is generic information. I have absolutely no problem with banning sugary drinks. The only reason they are not banned is pandering to suppliers and vendors.

[Farmer-Rick]

18. So if we tax food by 25% will that make poor people thinner?

[crazytown]

22. No, they will eat more junk.

Not much nutrition in 24oz sugar pop either.

[Beakybird]

24. Comparing food to tobacco is a real straw horse argument.

[Farmer-Rick]

39. But I am using the same logic as those who want sin taxes.

The problem is that you need food to live. You don't need cigarettes to live. I was hoping somone would give me that kind of argument.

Instead of attacking the structure of my statement give me a reason why this argument lacks comparable issues. How is my argument a straw man?

[Mr.Bill]

40. No politician has the right

to decide for me what is a sin.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Not even 1st degree murder?

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Mr.Bill]

63. I was speaking in the context

of what they want to tax because it's a sin.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Oh okay... gotcha.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[The Valley Below]

25. Not food. Soda pop.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. So should the tax system be used to raise revenue or to influence social behavior?

That was a topic of considerable debate in the tax law course I took a few million years ago.

[beastie boy]

36. If the social behavior in question puts additional burden on the State,

taxes are one way of responding to such behavior. This doesn't preclude taxes from being used to raise revenue. The difference is that the former is more targeted than the latter and does not financially affect the entirety of the population being taxed, which seems fair to me.

[mr_lebowski]

42. Pretty sure Tax Policy was purposefully crafted to promote 'marriage' for many decades (nt)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. As was the home mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction.

IIRC, this was how the debate started in the tax class.

[The Valley Below]

6. One could argue that his proposed taxes on sugary drinks and cigarettes...

do the opposite of "demeaning people," and instead try to improve their lives.

[Prosper]

16. If you want to help poor people you don't tax them.

Give poor people good paying jobs. Taxing poor people that already don’t make enough money to live is an inhumane Atrocity.

[The Valley Below]

17. Will BS be offering the poor free cigarettes and cokes anytime soon?

Asking for a friend.

[crazytown]

55. !

No free sex for your friend

[The Valley Below]

57. A lack of sex causes cancer.

Don't you know?

[Jose Garcia]

50. How would people who don't make enough money to live have any money for cigarettes?

[pnwmom]

60. It's not an "inhumane atrocity" to tax people for the tobacco products that risk their health. nt

[Prosper]

73. Remove tobacco from the market. What good does it serve????

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2019, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

[pnwmom]

77. Taxing it doesn't remove it from the market. It recognizes that tobacco use

has health costs that the taxes partially pay for.

[Prosper]

78. I said to remove it from the market.

[OhNo-Really]

9. Link please.

[Squinch]

10. I'm all for taxing tobacco and sugary drinks. It isn't a stand against the poor, obviously. Why

would you frame it that way?

[Prosper]

20. Any tax on people that don't make a living wage

is regressive and harmful.

The most recent review concluded that soft drinks contribute only a small amount to obesity, but scientists differ in their interpretation of the evidence available.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/35127-poverty-soda-pop-consumption-101103.html

[Squinch]

29. No. This tax is not harmful. In fact, if it makes more people quit smoking and sodas, it

is actually very good.

I was a smoker for 25 years. At one point, the price of cigarettes passed a price that I thought was too ridiculous to pay every day. It was a big factor in my quitting. I think I would be dead right now if that hadn't happened.

I'll grant you that taxes on necessities are regressive and harmful. But to include tobacco and soda in that category is absurd.

So again, your characterization that this is "taxing the poor" is dopey.

[vsrazdem]

31. Because he is basically stating that when poor people have more money they make bad choices.

That's why we have to tax them. Starts around 5:40. This is so disgusting.

Bloomberg speaking at IMF

[kcr]

92. It affects them disproportionately, that's why

People who aren't poor can continue to consume all they like because they can afford it while the poor take a disproportionately large hit to their budget. It does nothing to address any underlying causes people consume unhealthy products. It also lets companies who make and market them off the hook. It also opens the door for budget starved states and municipalities to tax other household products and consumables. Once they've rewritten those codes it makes it much easier. Don't think they won't. I've seen it happen.

[bluecoat_fan]

11. Get use to it, many "R" will be voting in the D Primary

Changing the party for the worse.

[CTyankee]

94. Is that even allowed in NY?

I live in CT and only members of each party can vote in their primaries.

[DownFromTheMountain]

13. Wow, talk about premature postulation

From Zero to idiot in nothing flat.

[Joe941]

26. This is a dishonest post taking things out of context.

[Prosper]

28. Stop telling people how to live and help them to live.

Thousands of people die early and suffer more each month month due to lack of health insurance. A radical elitist attack on poor people is infinitely distanced from helping poor people. Who is Bloomberg speaking for when he choses to take a stand against poor people.

[Squinch]

30. So reducing diabetes and cancer are not helping them to live? Really, your stance on

this as "taking a stand against poor people" is dishonest and foolish.

And why are you spouting nonsense from a right wing rag to begin with?

Things that make you go, "hmmmm."

[Prosper]

43. Helping poor people would be to outlaw sugary drinks

replacing them with cheap healthy drinks.

[Squinch]

46. Cheap healthy drinks, like water? And if taxing soda makes you irate, I could just imagine

what your response to outlawing them would be.

[Prosper]

72. It is about making poor people pay a tax.

It is inhumane to tax people that already can’t afford to live. Tax the rich and furnish poor people with healthy drinks like juices. Balance taxing poor people who will have to give something up against people with discretionary money that won’t have to give anything up. The health of poor people should be maintained by free universal health insurance not taxing them.

[Squinch]

75. So now your answer is to give poor people free juice? Your position just gets weirder and weirder.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

71. Why not tax junk food companies

For making shit that hurts people.

[pnwmom]

62. Preventative care should include discouraging people from using tobacco products.

Taxing tobacco products is a kind of preventative care.

[Prosper]

33. Bloomberg is no friend of the poor.

Bloomberg is a generous philanthropist, and he’s given significant funds to issues ranging from climate change to gun control. But the claims of financial responsibility and political impossibility to push back on desperately needed reforms while promoting his own personal charity reveals the truth behind the “can’t do” agenda. It’s about control and money — who has it, and who does not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/26/mike-bloomberg-politics-cant-do/%3foutputType=amp

[marble falls]

35. Philanthropy on Bloomberg's level is about self-agrandizement and a band-aid ....

that changes nothing on a practical level for the poor.

[wiley]

37. Just reported this post

This is a misleading title. It reproduces a right wing talking point from the Washington Times, a right wing Kushner owned paper that serves the political goals of the Republican Party. You need to decide what party you belong to and get off this board. More tired memes from a Sanders supporter. You guys should stop the BS.

[vsrazdem]

41. He said this in the IMF conference.

starts at about 5:40

[Prosper]

48. So, taxing the poor is an acceptable action??

[Prosper]

74. In what mind is attacking taxing poor people a right wing talking point???

[Hoyt]

38. Why post something like that, when he was talking about taxing tobacco?

[vsrazdem]

45. Because he was basically saying that poor people make bad choices. If you tax soda, the "poor"

people will drink less sugary drinks and live longer.

[George II]

47. When did he say, or ask, that? No link, no source, just one lone sentence.

[vsrazdem]

51. Starts about 5:40

[nycbos]

49. This is incredibly disingenuous

I am a New Yorker.

Bloomberg wanted a higher tax on tobacco because smoking is unhealthy.

The tobacco companies talking points was "it is a tax on poor people"

Bloomberg didn't want to pander to the tobacco companies. Taxes on tobacco went up. Smoking bans in public places were put in place and coming rates dropped.

There is a lot to criticize Bloomberg on but this is not it.

[George II]

68. +1,000,000

[Lucky Luciano]

53. Bloomberg has flaws. This is not one of them as this is a misleading post.

I welcome bbg’s money to the campaign if he bashes fuckface continuously and touts his social and climate agenda. I strongly oppose him as president based on his anti-4th amendment positions in the past.

If we do have to have a billionaire as president, then he would be the best choice. He is competent, not crazy, and has a lot of experience running a large diverse government. He would be terrible for improving healthcare and strengthening social security obviously.

[left-of-center2012]

56. From the right-wing Washington Times

From the right-wing Washington Times
Are we using right wing talking points now?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/29/mike-bloomberg-touts-taxing-poor-do-you-want-pande/

Bloomberg touts taxing the poor: 'Do you want to pander to those people?'
The Washington Times - Friday, November 29, 2019

The Washington Times holds a conservative political stance. The Columbia Journalism Review wrote in 1995, "The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve. No major paper in America would dare be so partisan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance,_content_and_controversies

[crazytown]

64. Originally here -

https://www.devex.com/news/at-spring-meetings-michael-bloomberg-on-sin-taxes-2050-and-ai-92590

Bloomberg was talking about taxing tobacco.

[The Mouth]

66. Isn''t he the one who wanted to tax big sodas as well?

Asking for a friend...

[I_UndergroundPanther]

70. That is evil

Only republican rich pigs do.
He is no Democrat. Please kick him to the curb..and stomp.

[Veritaski]

76. I am damn tired of choosing from only multimillionaire candidates.

We need to have some common blue collar manager with ethics and common sense in the White House

[Prosper]

84. It is impossible for a multimillionaire to be in touch with

the reality that matters. They are insulated with layers of people reinforcing their choices. All experts and all dedicated to their benefactor. The best example of this is the recording of Trump and his full cabinet. The focus went around the room to each member as they expressed their love and adoration for Trump.

[Prosper]

86. Sorry. I posted a link and then panicked and deleted it

because I thought it was the same source I used for my OP. But it was NY instead of Washington so here is the link supporting the above post:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/trump-boasts-of-record-setting-pace-of-activity.amp.html

[Recursion]

87. Err... tobacco taxes work, though

Everywhere they're tried when taxes go up consumption goes down. Once upon a time that was considered a good thing.

[Prosper]

88. A better thing is to eliminate deadly threats. But

unfortunately we pander to big money and let deadly threats thrive. Tobacco sales $130 billion, alcohol sales $250 billion. Some cigarettes are 8 dollars a pack. Alcohol sales increasing and cigarette sales decreasing. Tobacco companies have blamed increasing gas prices for the decline in volume. Shouldn’t that be thanked ???

[Recursion]

89. Keep in mind I also like rising gas prices

It's the only way to get people to actually think about how much gas they use. Did you know SUVs passed cars in US sales last year? That's absolutely crazy. We need gas to be more expensive.

[Prosper]

90. The better way is to limit the size of car engines to 1 liter.

Gasoline tax only punishes poor people. Limiting the size of engines looks to the future. The General Motors 1997 Geo Metro 1 liter engines Car easily got 50MPG Hwy. That was 22 years ago. Pursuing that line of engines would probably get 100 MPG. That is the way to reduce gasoline consumption. Tractor trailer rigs weighing 80,000 lbs get 5 MPG. That is the same as 20 four thousand pound cars. That is the same as 1 car getting 100MPG. The technology is their to get 100MPG so why isn’t it pursued??? Because it is easier to levy a tax than to get people to accept 1 liter engines. So pander to new car purchasers and Levy a regressive tax on poor people who are already paying a regressive tax on everything else.

[RhodeIslandOne]

91. Do better than this

The Washington Times is a rag.

[Prosper]

93. Read my apology I added to the bottom of the OP .