Ok, my point is simply that notion that there exists a valid camp where haves are punished by taxes is simply false, the haves like to claim that, but it's simply not true. The haves are not punished by the system, they're rewarded by it.
Again, I didn't intend to setup this argument. However, all one needs to show is that a "Have" is materially worse off thanks to taxes. This gets easier or harder depending on definitions.
Clearly, Have versus HaveNot is not binary; there is a range there. Who is a Have and who is a HaveNot? If a Have is a $20k/yearly worker and a HaveNot is without a job entirely, we could easily argue that taxes are punishing the Haves.
I don't think anyone would reasonably call 20k a year a have. In fact we've already seen a pretty good definition of the split in the 99% movement. Haves are the upper class, not the middle class and below.
