The biggest retort that the liberals have towards a more fair distribution of taxes is that the rich did not make their money on their own, so they should pay more. Let’s set aside the ridiculous notion that one group should pay more versus another, for now, and let’s start with the notion that the rich don’t make their money on their own. First question, do the poor make their money on their own? If they do, then how come the rich don’t? I’ve never gotten an answer to this question that remotely resembles rational thought. Next question, if the rich have money that doesn’t belong to them then why aren’t they in jail for theft or, at least, for possession of stolen items?  I haven’t gotten anything resembling a good answer, let alone a logical answer to this question either. Third, exactly whose help are the rich supposed to have received? To this, we get an impassioned response: The military, police, firemen, EMS, waste disposal workers, teachers and others that are working in infrastructure jobs that are basically fundamental to any civilization. What puzzles me is this: Are the rich the only ones that benefit from these people — whom I’ll refer to as infrastructure workers? The dumbfound look on people’s face is priceless when I point this out. Some of the more stubborn ones try to tell me that the rich benefit more than the poor from infrastructure workers, because they are wealthier and have more to protect. Anyone buying this bullshit?!

Anyone who can think knows that this is a bullshit argument but just to make sure here’s the dismantling of the fictitious argument. When it comes to the military, EMS and firefighters, it is about life more than property and each life is as precious as the next, which means that no one benefits more than the other; anyone who doesn’t see this, know this and can’t agree with this have more problems than trying to figure out this argument. As for other people that work in infrastructure positions such as waste disposal collectors, sewage workers, road crews, these folks benefit both the rich and the poor equally. But let me get into more detail because someone argued to me that the rich benefit more because they’re the ones who drive, go on vacations, ride planes, etc. My argument is that the poor use more public transportation, relatively benefit more from fluid transportation, and use of ports and airports. Why? The rich can afford to have their own farms, have food flown in and circumvent the physical infrastructure, but the poor cannot afford to do this. The fact that we have a fairly well maintained physical infrastructure means that transportation costs for moving goods is relatively immaterial, which benefit the poor more than the rich. Same goes for postal services, sewage system. and other infrastructure. However, the easiest to highlight is public education and teachers. This, without doubt, benefit the poor way more disproportionately than the wealthy, who can afford private education and often do. The last one that is somewhat controversial is the police force. First, like EMS, firefighting, sewage, education, most of the police force that impact our lives comes from local jurisdiction and isn’t a federal issue; however, at the federal level there are organizations such as the FBI, ATF and the DEA. Many libs/socs argue that these organizations benefit the wealthy far more than the poor because the wealthier people have more to protect. On the other hand crime rates are far higher in poorer neighborhoods than wealthier neighborhoods and so the poorer areas need the benefit of these services more. Same can be said for local police; yes, while the wealthy have more to protect, crime rates including murder, rape, robbery and muggings are far higher in poorer neighborhoods. Also, the rich pay higher local property taxes to gain the benefit of their police services.

Therefore, if you keep on going down the list you will find that the rich and the poor benefit relatively equally in all respects, but one thing: Education. Here, the poor benefit more than the rich. So, when the libs/socs say with such indignation, “You didn’t make your money on your own!” This statement must include EVERYONE, not just selectively the wealthy! This means that EVERYONE should pay for infrastructure services equally, because it more or less benefits EVERYONE equally — if you want to be a stickler about it, the poor should pay more since they do benefit more from public education. So, how does this argument even begin to make sense as the cornerstone to why the libs/socs argue that the rich should pay more in taxes? Do you see how crazy/stupid/irrational/immoral their reasoning is?

This is only the beginning of their stupidity. Then there is the matter of what the contributions of the infrastructure service workers have to do with the rich paying more to pay for social programs when the vast majority of the people who benefit from social programs such as welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credits, medicaid and others are not former or current military personnel, police officers, firemen, EMS personnel, waste industry workers, teachers and others in the infrastructure services. I usually get a blank stare from people when I ask this question.

The point is that the argument that the rich don’t make their money on their own so they have to pay more in taxes is designed to guilt the gullible and witless among the wealthy into paying more in taxes and not feeling bad about doing so. However, in reality, this argument — like many others that the libs/socs try to push — has no legs and clearly demonstrate that the libs/socs are not what I would call rational, let alone rational thinkers. Yet, these and other stupid/immoral/irrational arguments are used daily to justify the theft of property from the rich and justify doing so because of the democratic process — this will be the subject of a future post.

This has to stop! Those of you that know better, either because you’ve read my posts or knew before hand, you must engage the libs/socs around you and show them the error of their ways. This isn’t going to stop them from believing what they believe in, but it will make them less likely to spread their gospel for fear of being challenged and soundly defeated in their irrational and stupid philosophy, if you could even call it that. This has worked for me, as I’ve soundly neutralized and taken the edge off of many libs/socs’ demeanor and feelings of sanctimonious superiority.

However, in order to change their minds about their position or, at least, get them started down that road, you must be able to answer the following question: “If we don’t have social programs to protect the vulnerable in our society then what is the alternative?” First, social programs don’t protect the vulnerable in our society they actually harm them in the long-run, but this aside, the alternative is not a simple answer and is best explained in my book, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and on Kindle. Also, read the companion to this book, “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and on Kindle for more answers. I welcome any comments or questions via this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thanks for buying my books in advance and please don’t forget to rate this post. Also, I hope you have a chance to read my other posts. Have a great day!