Should we really tax the rich?

By Che

“We must demand that the extremely wealthy pay their fair share. Period,” tweeted Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. There really exists no particular context for the statement other than he feels it his weekly obligation to plead his case for more government power. 

Oh, I’m sorry, did you think I was going to write a scathing piece on the billionaire corporate overlords and how we must give their wealth to the government? Nope, I already see the move.  

Let’s take a step back and see this from a different vantage point. We’re used to the idea of taxes. “Two things are for certain; death and taxes,” the old axiom goes. Giving our money to the government is as American as apple pie. You do it because the generation before you did and the generation before them did too. 

So, when we see a tweet like Sen. Sanders’, we accept it because we accept the premise that money has to be given to the government on an annual basis.  

Now I’m not against all forms of taxation. My libertarian friends might not want to hear anything other than “taxation is theft” and I understand that sentiment fully. But if a society has agreed to pool their resources to pay for a particular utility, I’m fine with that. It’s important that our infrastructure needs are met, and this is an effective way of doing that. 

But, and there’s always a “but,” the money should work for us, not the other way around. That’s a point the tax-hungry Bernie Bros tend to miss. Let’s go back to basics for a minute with this hypothetical scenario. 

We’re living in a small tribal community of around 100 people. Everyone serves some kind of function to ensure the tribe’s survival. Collectively, we elect people to represent the tribe in our affairs and dealings with other tribes. We also appoint them to oversee public utilities as determined by the collective population. 

In this case, let’s say that the tribe has agreed to appoint someone to organize a cleaning crew to keep up the maintenance in their village. An elected official assembles a crew of young men who aren’t pulling their weight as far as bringing in food and other resources (we say they’re “not pulling their weight” because if they were, they wouldn’t need the newly formed opportunity).  

This crew cleans up all the trash and maintains an aesthetic appeal to the territory. The money they earn is paid for by the people, and the actual production they bring to the community. The tribesmen hunt and collect other food stuff and a portion of that is then divvied up amongst everyone, including the cleaning crew. The cleaning crew, as you can see, doesn’t produce anything of benefit, but they provide a public service everyone can appreciate.  

The problem is not the above scenario per se. No, the problem is when the elected official realizes the amount of power he has. They can create a public “need,” real or  

imagined, create a new “crew” to carry out said task and then collect the money from the people actually producing. The tribe with the newly formed cleaning crew is happy with its investment. The place is being kept neat and orderly. The elected official is getting paid to oversee the crew, and the crew is paid for its services. Fair and even exchange all around. 

But the elected official has other aspirations. He wants an office where he can conduct his affairs. Yes, he has his own hut but there needs to be one built specifically for conducting his “business.” 

 He proposes this new idea to the tribe. He explains how the success of the crew can be duplicated with many different services, but first they need a building with which to operate out of. The public sees the recent success and buys into the new idea. The elected official then finds another group of unproductive young men and hires them to build the new structure, paid for of course by those that are producing.  

Can you see the direction this is heading? The more “problems” the public is made aware of, the more “crews” are needed to solve those “problems.” The more “crews” created, the more secure the elected official will be. The more “problems” needing to be solved, the more money they can take from those that produce something.  

What then becomes the incentive to go out and produce via hunting and gathering? Why would a young man risk hunting wild animals and gathering food from dangerous places when they can work for an elected official who has guaranteed resources? Why would you set out every week to hunt, when there’s no guarantee you’re going to bring something home when there’s an income waiting for you every single week?  

This is the power of a big, expanded government. It begins with having the power to accrue resources at their disposal. It ends with your subjugation.  

Every time there’s a “crisis,” there’s a “solution” that consists of the government being allocated more power and control over our resources. The Hegelian dialectic is on full display as billions of dollars are committed to ending “racial and gender inequity,” “climate change,” and “social injustice.” Of course, they’re all unquantifiable goals that can constantly be used as a carrot on a stick to push their radical agenda.  

Bernie is giving the proverbial virtue signal by pointing the finger at the greedy capitalist all while empowering the greediest swine of all, the non-producing government. This is the underlying motive behind it all. 

The “people’s champ” routine is nothing, but a ruse used to gain your trust. “He fights for the little guy” while gladly taking the “little guy’s” hard earned check. In Bernie’s world, righteousness is predicated on how well you submit to the government. Bernie doesn’t believe you are responsible enough to manage your own money, so he wants you to put it in his hands. How convenient.