The people who would get such tax breaks are, as you pointed out,
likely to already have money, but yet you don't see anyone on the left complaining about the rich getting a tax break on that one, do you?
Reminds me of Osama's disasterous "cash for clunkers" ploy.
Rich people, who could afford to get a new car, traded in their old one - whic
was destroyed - for a new one. Win for the rich!
I actually know someone who was not so rich who held onto an older car just
to try to take advantage of the program. They, a Democrat, were very dissappointed that they were not going to get what they thought out of it.
They eventually got more money from someone willing to come get it and tow
it off after it stopped running.
Poor people, who can't afford to get a new car, found the prices of used cars go up - because the "cash for clunkers" cars were destroyed. Supply down, price up - Economics 101 (which all these Lefties failed, it seems). So the poor were stuck with their increasingly unreliable car and no way to get a better one. Lose for the poor.
It sure did drive prices up! I wondered if that was not part of their
ploy, though.
I remember some years during the Obama administration where the economy
would get a little sluggish. There would be a "leak" that parts of the administration that would not normally need ammunition of any kind was
buying it all up. Then there was a big consumer run on it, shortages,
etc., but I think that was the point there, too. Get people to stock up thinking there is a shortage, which stimulates the economy, and also
creates a shortage.
* SLMR 2.1a * Sushi: known to the rest of the world as 'Bait'
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)