The article, headlined “What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts,” offers proposals for taxing the wealthy more heavily. According to several economists, it says, “the government could raise large amounts of revenue exclusively from this small group [of the very richest], while still allowing them to take home a majority of their income.” By squeezing more out of the rich, we are told, the rest of society could enjoy such goodies as free college tuition, free pre-kindergarten programs, and less costly health insurance.
To which Mr. Taranto replies by calling such proposals the “politics of envy” and asking: “How is this any different from enviously imagining what you would do if you got your grubby paws on your wealthy neighbor’s money?”
By the standard of reason and rights, this is an unanswerable question. What justification could there be for enabling some people to benefit simply by seizing the wealth of others?
Think about how you would normally answer that. You would try to argue how the rich aren’t rich enough to buy us out of our problems. You would argue about the negative economic effects, the reduced jobs, the Laffer curve, and such. You could argue about government waste.
But here the author appeals to a very fundamental K-selected urge. If you earn the money, nobody should be able to steal it, and spend it themselves. It creates a dog-whistle to liberals threatening to out-group them as grubby thieves, turning the crowd upon them. The response to this argument would be a lot of nodding heads among moderates, and silent liberals.
Our most primal urges operate around r/K Theory, especially in politics. This is how you harness the power of those emotional forces, and use them to destroy your opponent’s will to fight.
The liberal’s response is and always has been that the rich did NOT earn their money. Liberals believe the rich got that way by exploiting the masses, or by financial chicanery, or by outright theft.
So, in the liberal’s mind, heavy taxation of the rich is simply righting a wrong.
Your recommended tactic has the virtue of highlighting the fundamental issue but does not end the debate.
That’s the one problem: The ultra rich are largely democrat donors and fairly liberal. Taxing the Oprah Winfreys, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Warren Buffets of America only seems like karmic justice at this point, given their enthusiastic support of open borders and their generous donations to the Obama campaign.
I’m not a Liberal but the wealthy are using their wealth to flood the country with aliens, bail them out when they fail at high risk deals and skew voting for their causes. As far as I’m concerned the wealthy should be taxed until their anus bleeds. This is not from envy more like revenge. They are destroying my society and they should pay for it’s destruction instead of passing the cost onto me. Obama actually said something slightly true when he commented that businesses didn’t build it all themselves. This is true. Probably not in the manner he meant it but true none the less. Could Zuckerburgh start facebook in Somalia? No. As soon as he got his first stock offering they’d be torturing him to get his money. If the wealthy are going to make my country like Somalia I want them to pay for it.