Because taking out of one persons food budget and the other person's art-collecting budget is inherently harder on the former than the latter. You are hurting the poor in a way and to a degree you are not hurting on the rich.
This ignores the $0 being paid by the poor. And the same type of rhetoric could be said about anything the poor would buy other than food (and rent/housing payment). So, if poor person wants to go watch a movie in a theater, it is inherently disproportionate for society to charge poor people for that because you are taking out of their food budget, whereas with non-poor people you are not. Or so the spin suggests.
The claim is ignorant and not supported by fact.
If they can't lease, then they can't purchase. Interesting that you think a purchase is possible, but leasing not.
On cars that are likely under warranty.
You just really have no comprehension of how the finance industry treats the poor.
You clearly have no reasonable rebuttal and instead have to make it about me to have any leg to stand on.
Hey let's ignore the $0 paid by the poor and yet base our whole point on that, implied you, early on.
Subsidized insurance is a great thing. It's hardly the only issue.
In today's world, healthcare would be in top 3 expenses for most people. Housing number 1 I would think and healthcare number 2. If I'm telling you I've had insurance with $0 in premiums, and $0 in co-pays, and you're telling me I have privilege and no comprehension of how the poor are treated, then I'm pretty sure you're missing a number of things in the discussion. The $0 being paid in income tax by the poor being the most pertinent.
I recall decades ago traveling to West Africa (before I was 18). Poor there, vs. poor here is apples and oranges and recall thinking that often upon return. Poor there would not be remotely considering what type of car might I be able to finance in order to get to work that day. Poor here would be considering which Air Jordans might I get this year, because obviously you need the latest and greatest tennis shoe. I mean, we are talking about clothing your foot, so obviously that's crucial. Poor here, in this thread, is earning anything under $25,000. By that standard, I've been poor more in my life than the next step up, and yet, have memory of being moderately wealthy often, which I attribute to the trip to Africa where I observed actual poor, not the American version.
And you'd be surprised how expensive even a negotiated bone-marrow-transplant or NICU-stay is.
I highly doubt I would be surprised. I'd think it vastly over-inflated in cost, and would be surprised if either was had for $10,000 or less. We can have the debate on healthcare costs (preferably in another thread) if you think I'm ig'nant on the topic. I don't think I am.
Or food. Or clothing. Or school supplies for your children.
All of which $0 for the poor in income taxes would help.
OK. Well. That put a bunch of people out of work. So you can cut them from the tax rolls and start financing that free medical insurance for them you were mentioning you were fond of.
Then they will vote the people who did it out of office and no matter what your plan was, it's derailed.
There is no next. If poor people have to cut expenses on rising costs, then government has to learn to do the same. I would say this is glaringly obvious at this stage of American history. The trillion dollar debt being fairly key indicator. Thing with government is it all becomes justifiable and crucial once spent. Yet, when observed (by I think literally everyone) it is well known to have pork galore. So, to then say we can never ever touch the pork because someone will lose their job, is like a poor person being told they can't get the 55 inch screen TV, but they do anyway and now don't have money for food, clothing and school supplies for children and blaming those people who charge so much for 55 inch screen TV's, knowing that there are poor people that will