The Tax Less Taken

It's been a year. Is it safe to come out of hiding?

Talk about backwards! Our (not so) Dear Leader has once again revealed his true colors concerning his perception of your property. Critical of the Republican plan to extend tax cuts for all Americans, Obama states that to extend tax cuts to the top 3% would be "to give" an average of $100 million to each of those people.

Let me say that again: extending tax cuts = giving money to the taxpayer.

Still didn't catch it? Try this: Not taking their money = giving them money.

I'm sorry... but "not taking" is not synonymous with "giving".

"Not taking" necessarily means that the property not being taken belongs to the person keeping the property, and not to the person wanting to do the taking.

"Giving" necessarily requires that the property must first belong to the person doing the giving.

If the person "not taking" is the government, then the property necessarily belongs to the tax payor.
If the person doing the "giving" is the government, then the property must necessarily first belong to the government.

So...

To claim that a tax cut would "give" property to the rich would necessarily mean that the property belongs to the government... which is interesting, since "tax" necessarily means that the property is surrendered to the government, meaning that it first belonged to the tax payor. But for a liberal, the property never truly belonged to the person earning it, or the "wage earner", which means that at tax time, we are really figuring out how much of our salaries Our Dear Leader is willing to let us have.

Hmmm... have you been watching Greece lately?