Less taking is not Giving
But let's soak the rich anyway
By Ian Darwin
I've heard this fallacy a number of times in political discourse this year. People accuse one or another politician of wanting to "take money from medical care and give it to the rich
", meaning, to give "the rich" a tax cut. Now the last time I looked, taxation consisted of taking away money that belongs to a person or company, by threat of force ("you no pay, we take your house and/or put you in jail"). So: raising the tax rate means taking more money away from people in the targetted tax bracket. And lowering the rate does not mean "giving them money", it means letting them keep what they have!
The only scenario in which a tax cut would mean "giving money" to the tax-reduced bracket would be a country in which the country legally owned everything within it. The name for this system is communism. If you really want to write about politics from a communist (or Marxist) point of view, well, why not move to North Korea for a year and see how well it works for you?
If you really want to stop "giving to the rich", you need to stop subsidies, corporate handouts, enforced monopolies, and all the other forms of corruption that absolute power has absolutely corrupted our legislatures with. But we all know that won't happen, as these are the channels though which some of the rich get funded by the taxes paid by the poor and middle class. Let's be charitable and call these the less productive rich, the ones who subsist at the public trough. Also, part of this funding goes into the election coffers
both halves of what Sheldon Richman calls "the Uniparty" (Dems and GOP in the USA
, by extension, Liberal and Conservative in Canada). Thus we know this stream of money from the poor and middle-class to the less-productive rich is unassailable. So it's far easier to rally votes by claiming to "soak the rich", and that's what is happening now.