Jesus vs. Ocasio-Cortez on Marginal Tax Rates

By Shane Kastler

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), loves to talk about “marginal tax rates.” In fact, she reminds me of a teenager who just learned a new word and constantly works it into conversations to sound smart. All while ridiculing anyone who disagrees with her. At the outset, it should be noted that she frequently uses the phrase incorrectly. She says we need to have marginal taxes, but we ALREADY have them. What she means is that she wants HIGHER marginal tax rates. In fact, she has floated the idea of a 70 percent tax rate on incomes that exceed $10 million. She says the government should seize this exorbitant rate on the “tippy tops” (her words) of people's incomes. “Tax the rich” is a popular rallying cry that is sure to gain some votes from those who are accomplices and recipients of your thievery. But is such taxation really beneficial to society as a whole? Is it moral? Is it justified, if the plunder is used to “help the poor”? These are thorny ethical questions that expose AOC and other socialists like her, as the unrighteous villains that they are. I dare say, that even Jesus would agree with my assessment.

The gospel of Mark records a quote from Jesus in which he says this: “No one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” (Mark 3:27) To be clear, Jesus was not addressing marginal tax rates in this passage. He was speaking of spiritual matters. But the example he uses is both telling and true. If you are going to “plunder” a man of strength, then you must first “bind” the man of strength. AOC is seeking to both bind and plunder in at least two ways. First of all, she used the political system to get herself elected into a position of extreme power. Secondly, she wishes to use this power to take money that doesn't belong to her and give it to people who haven't earned it. And she makes it sound so pious!

In a recent tweet, she wrote, “It’s wild that some people are more scared of a marginal tax rate than the fact that 40% of Americans struggle to pay for at least one basic need, like food or rent. Imagine if we focused positively, away from fear of the former toward solving the latter.” My twitter response, and accurate translation of what she said, was this: "Translation: It's wild that some people won't allow politicians like me to mug them so we can give the proceeds to our voters. If we could only make people think POSITIVELY about getting mugged!"

While my response may have been mildly sarcastic, it was nonetheless true. Her vacuous logic plays so well with an ignorant and immoral populace that sees plunder as their birthright. And the class warfare that AOC engages in, by pitting rich against poor, is a classic ploy of socialism. Demonize the industrious, so the mobs will side with you in your thievery. It worked for Lenin, so why shouldn't it work for AOC? Not to mention her vague terminology and questionable numbers of “40 percent who struggle to pay....” How do you define an ambiguous word like “struggle” in the world of economics? And even if some people do legitimately “struggle” - Does this justify taking from others?

The dangerous part of AOC's con game is how many people defend such actions. One “tweeter” chastised me by tweeting, “You realize how that tax would work? Only those who earn over $10m in a single year would be affected. You would benefit, not be harmed.” My response was this: “Yes, I know how it works. But robbing from the rich to MAKE them poor is no more noble than robbing from the poor to KEEP them poor. It doesn't matter who benefits from thievery. It's still wrong. And how do you know I make less than $10 million?”

This person's mindset is all too common in our world today. They justify thievery by basing it on who is getting robbed, instead of considering whether or not robbery itself is moral. Socialists like AOC, assume that if you have money, you must come by it nefariously. While it's true that some people steal and/or swindle their way to a fortune, what about those who actually earn it through work? The whole concept of increasing wealth through personal labor and sacrifice is antithetical to the leech mentality of socialism, which champions taxation at exorbitant rates; so the political class can buy votes through entitlements. And make no mistake, a tax rate that allows the government to take twice as much as you are allowed to keep, is pure thievery. Even if you concede the necessity of some taxation, it is impossible to justify such a gross imbalance that punishes production. An economy based on this type of “Robin Hood” ethics is doomed to fail, as history has proven time and again.

In conclusion, AOC's socialism is not only dangerous, it is immoral. And it is the way the immorality is packaged that makes it so dangerous. She may pawn herself off as righteous in her indignation of the “rich” and her supposed desire to “help the poor.” But if she were REALLY righteous, she might encourage the rich to give to charity, rather than using her newfound power to fleece them.  And if her indignation were rooted in morality, she would oppose all forms of thievery, regardless of who is robbed or who benefits from the theft.

Comments

[Sydney Horn]

Our government is too large and it is not run efficiently. Why are we sending foreign aid to countries when we are in debt trillions of dollars. Taxing is not the answer. Spending is the problem. Taxing the rich is punishing them for being industrious. Who does she think provides the jobs?

Sydney Horn

[Scott]

I know, I know. AOC is the new democrat darling, to replace the older vanguard. Also, beware of Kamala Harris, running for president. Both clueless about economics.