Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza
except for the fact the she (like Gym) never acknowledges that smaller businesses pay these taxes. I read one of her quotes on the budget compromise and she essentially said this is a giveaway to rich mega corporations- even though there are very few operating in Philly.
|
That's how much of the lefty left seems to think, and I'm not sure they draw much distinction between smaller businesses and large ones; they tend to be focused on the immediate needs of the working class and believe heavily in expansive government intervention. I would personally argue that they miss the forest for the trees. Honestly, in my experience, much of it is lazy assumption. For example, I've had to explain how the tax abatement worked to people, because they just assumed it went directly into developers' pockets.
Now, should Gauthier & Gym know better? Sure (and I'm sure on some substantial level they do), but they're also representing the thinking of their base. I believe they really do sincerely believe in government as a potential tool to eradicate poverty, and that they don't think you accomplish that with a capitalist pro-business agenda, and they push back against development and stuff like that because they don't think it's for their constituents, who are going to be left out. I'm not sure that they're actually wrong on that front, btw, I just doubt that eradicating poverty is truly an accomplishable goal and I don't think you help the working class by narrowly dedicating all of your policy towards meeting their needs on the back end.
I apologize if I'm belaboring the point, but what I'm trying to get at is that it's counterproductive to assume the worst about others with different policy goals than us. I don't think we can have a constructive dialogue if we are unwilling to debate each other without assuming corruption.