What to Say to a Liberal Who Says “The Rich Can Afford to Pay More in Taxes”

I hate watching talk shows when conservatives are on. Few of them know how to argue well. They’re too concerned about their reputation. They have to come across as “statesmen.” They want the media to like them. That’s never going to happen.

I practice all the time on how I would argue a particular topic. Writing four or five articles every day helps to sharpen my rhetorical skills.

So how should constitutionalists and other sane people approach some “info-babe,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to call low-information women interviewers, on the topic of taxing the rich based on the premise that “the rich can afford to pay more in taxes”?

Here’s the liberal narrative that even the wealthy have fallen for:

“Stephen Prince, who is 61, lives in a gated golf community near Nashville, Tenn., and owns a condo in New York. Not only can he afford to pay more, he says, but he also believes people in his bracket need to pony up to support essential programs such as education and roads.”

I can see an interviewer using Mr. Prince’s statement in an interview with an anti-tax advocate.  I would say, “Mr. Prince, then pony up and shut up. No one’s stopping you from paying more in taxes. You may want to flush your money down a high-priced government toilet, but there are a lot of wealthy people who don’t.”

I would then take over the interview by asking the interviewer this question: “What is your net worth and how much do you make in a year?”

Soledad O’Brien is a big-name talker who wants to raise taxes on the rich because “they can afford it.” Her net worth is $5 million. She earns $1.5 million per year. By asking this question, you put her on the defensive. Your goal is to make her stutter and expose her hypocrisy.

If she refuses to say how much she makes, tell the viewing audience. You’re goal is to make your case to the people watching the interview. She’s your conduit to the people.

Looking into the camera with the red light on, say the following:

“Soledad O’Brien is rich. She makes more about $1.5 million dollars every year. She says the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. This means that she can afford to pay more in taxes. If she believes the rich should pay more in taxes, why shouldn’t the rich pay more for food, clothing, cars, computers, and houses? Why is it just for taxes?”

The next time Ms. O’Brien goes out to eat, she should have to show her pay stub. The restaurant would then calculate how much she can afford to pay. It might be $50 for her and $4.50 for the guy who cleans her office. “Are you OK with this, Ms. O’Brien?”

The same “the rich can afford it” principle should then be applied to the shoes she buys. She wants a new car? The dealership looks at her net worth and charges her accordingly.

So instead of taxing anybody, how about basing wealth confiscation on how much people can afford?

While we're at it, why don't we handicap everything we do? Every professional sports team would have to play "fair." Baseball teams should have to average batting and fielding percentages. News shows would be required to follow a system of "facial justice"[1] in hiring on-air personalities. Our neighborhoods would have to look like Levittown with rows of "little boxes" of different colors "all made out of ticky-tacky" that "all look just the same."

The point is, taxation should not be based on what a person can afford. Our tax system is out of whack because the government is in the wealth confiscation business to empower itself. Elected officials inherit the power to take money from some people so they can give it to other people. No private citizen or group of private citizens could ever do this legally. But government can when enough people get elected by people who want other people’s money.

“Ms. O’Brien, would you be morally justified in stealing money from your neighbors so you could give that money to other people? Yes or no? Do you believe that you and a group of your friends could take money out of a neighbor’s checking account so you as a group could give that stolen money to other people? Yes or no? But you do believe that it’s OK to elect people to confiscate the wealth of your neighbors. I don’t see the difference.”

Of course, don’t ever expect to be invited back for an interview.


Notes:
  1. See the novel Facial Justice by L.P. Hartley: "The dystopian society that emerges after World War Three is based on a collective sense of guilt. Citizens of this new world, officially labelled 'delinquents' by their Dictator, are named after murderers and are obliged to wear sackcloth and ashes. Individualism is stamped out. Privilege, which might arouse envy, is energetically discouraged. Thus it is no surprise to find Jael 97 reporting to the Ministry of Facial Justice. Being facially overprivileged, her good looks have been the cause of discontent among other women, and she has considered having a beta (second-grade) face fitted." []

About Gary DeMar
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles.
  • Progressive Republican

    It's a good thing this kind of attitude didn't hold sway after WWII. We would've become the third-world nation the Republicons have been pushing us toward.

  • zanzan42

    Or you can just read Harrison Bergeron.

    • Mudpuppy

      Yes. THAT's the name of the story. I mentioned it in another comment but could not remember the name. Excellent indictment of socialism/communism (along with Animal Farm). I read it in the late 60s/early '70s (can't remember exactly). It had a profound affect on me before I became politically aware.

  • marineh2ominer

    I would say leave the millionaires alone but tax people in taxpayer paid jobs at least at a 75% rate so they could all keep what they actually earn .

  • ET53

    Taxes are not stealing. They are part of the Constitution. OUR government is what we make of it.
    It was not individuals who built this nation it was leaders coming together for the common good, not just the good of a few.
    If the few feel so entitled to their money, let them pay for their own roads, their own water and electricity and their own security. Let them then leave OUR government to us.

  • http://twitter.com/crazy24u Hunter Dean Patton

    Come on people, we hilljacks needs a new mofo runging bad swimmin poo, and we wants you all rich hicks to par far it....come on!

  • greyhound44

    There is a real difference between the "rich" and the "wealthy".

    Sure, the rich are earning tons of money (that's certainly good for all), but they typically are spending all for taxes; mortgages; other debt; education; insurance; hopefully some savings; expensive cars and a very upscale life style.

    To whit, I saw an article this week that said the FICA CAP is rising from $110,100. in 2012 to $113,700. in 2013 and will affect 10MM taxpayers. A fair number of rich folks.

    The wealthy, on the other hand, have not had mortgages in decades, and drive 12 year old cars. Many pay no taxes (FICA and INCOME) in the US.

    ret expat

  • http://www.facebook.com/leprecaun14456 Robert Myles

    Very well written and to the point. Yes the demonrat wealthy won't pony up one extra dime in taxes as they want wealth distribution by the middleclass down and our exalted leader wants it to go even further from our middleclass to the poor of the entire world all without taking one dime from the rich demonrat's. Wonderful world we live in isn't it. the saying of "absolute power corrupt's absolutely" could not be truer than it is today. Very few wealthy in this country or any other country that are not liberal's or socialist's and commies are willing to pony up one dime. Just ask George soros to part with a billion or 2 and see what you get for an answer

  • WASP

    What I have to say to libtards isn't printable, much less viewable on the idiot box. Time for REAL Americans to think of ways of graphically showing our disapproval of these Anti-American criminals.

  • author5555

    I hate it when liberals are on these shows. They never tell both sides of the story. And they think the wealthy should be peanlized for building their wealth by paying more taxes. I say, screw them.

  • m7491

    What Romney SHOULD have said to the idiots who demonize him for having $250 million dollars!

    http://youtu.be/Wgxlp2UJI5I

  • Paul Gunderson

    An absolutely, great point! My boss is a lib (chimes in on private conversations between other engineers on wind, guns, etc...) and I'd love to tell him that it would be 'fair' if my $500 laptop cost him $600...if he said fine, I'd say, so what would my $25k car cost you? If that wasn't enough, eventually (house cost maybe) he would start to grumble, wouldn't he?

  • Sutekh

    t's funny is thatwealthy liberalsare always saying that they should pay more taxes, but they never do it voluntarily. They must be like Leona Helmsley -- they'll pay more taxes if the federal government will do them the service of coming out to their house and putting a gun to their heads.

    Gerard Depardeu just moved to Belgium to get away from France's 75% tax rate. You see, liberals tell you that if the government makes them pay more, they'll pay it, and then they move to someplace where the government can't find them.

  • barkway

    The wealthy already do pay more for food, cars, clothes, computers, houses, etc because they buy the most expensive of those items from elite stores. They don't drive a chevy malibu, they drive Lexus, BMW, Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, etc. They buy designer clothes, shop for groceries at Trader Joes and Fresh Market, live in exclusive communities and/or own huge properties, and buy top of the line technology. As such, they pay higher consumption & luxury taxes too, and by choice.