The article appeared in today’s Detroit Free Press, here. It makes reference to this report. It’s another diatribe against the so-called “ghetto tax,” suggesting that poor people are subject to all sorts of insiduous hidden “taxes,” simply because they’re poor. Setting aside the problem, that “taxes” are only levied and collected by the government, the fact of the matter is that it does not “cost more to be poor.” This is a post hoc erego propter hoc logical fallacy. .

I take issue with the article and the report on pretty much every claim they make, especially the so-called “ghetto tax” which doesn’t exist (prices are not fucking taxes, goddamn it,) and instances of “price gouging” which also does not exist. The only definition offered for price gouging on dictionary.com is hilarious, to say the least:

Pricing above the market when no alternative retailer exists.

In all seriousness – where “no alternative retailer” exists, you, by definition, are the market. It is literally impossible for you to set a price above your own price. Moving onward, though, when you’re “poor,” by definition you have fewer resources available to satisfy your many needs. You are less capable of saving money for the future because a significantly larger (than average) portion of your paycheck is immediately consumed. You are less able to weather shocks, such as temporary unemployment, interest rate hikes, medical emergencies, emergency repairs, etc. But really, these are not “penalties” for being “poor,” they’re penalties for having bad credit. I am far from wealthy, by any metric, relative to the rest of the United States, and most Western nations. I lease a new car. It’s fully insured. I eat well. I have money to enjoy a social life. I put money into a 401K, and a high-yield savings account. I have a good credit history, the last time I checked (about a year ago) my scores were all over 700. I have an unsecured, relatively low-interest line of credit through my bank, which would allow me to weather pretty much any shock not covered by my insurance policies.

Good credit notwithstanding, I can’t purchase a house anywhere I’d like to live. I could get a decent place in Detroit, but I don’t want to live in Detroit. So I rent. It’s the best option for me right now. I could purchase a more expensive house elsewhere, but I have the financial wherewithal to realize that doing so would be stretching my budget beyond its breaking point, and the inevitable result would be bankruptcy. And an interest rate is a price. And it is a signal. A signal which should say “For fuck’s sake, they are raping me on the interest rate. Perhaps it’s a bad idea for me to 100% finance that house in the middle of Detroit, with a Negative-ARM…” I recognize the signal for what it is. If you don’t, then you deserve what’s coming to you.

I would venture to guess that the bulk of these people are poor because they make shitty decisions. And they should be penalized for making shitty decisions – their losses should not be externalized – a process which only ensures that they continue to make more (and shittier) decisions in the future