Income Tax, 6

Sounds equitable, isn’t it? But that’s exactly where our sacrosanct natural drive to help gets hijacked and exploited by suppressive individuals through carefully rigged Trojan horse ideas: crimes are not only covered up but also blamed on the innocent in order to hijack the resentment of the victims away from the real offenders, and in the end against anyone else. How?

The secretly pretended and cultivated motive of progressive taxes is the instinctual idea of punishing top earners. This is in itself a PTS idea, infiltrated by suppressives, because it lumps all top earners together, honest as well as dishonest. The resentment against top earners is caused by top earnings achieved dishonestly, by out exchange, by stealing them from others, by preventing others to achieve similar earnings, etc. Consequently, the correct ethical action would be to discipline dishonesty and out exchange, not top earning as such, discouraging productivity by making earnings undesirable; the correct ethical action would be to discipline the correct cause, not an effect which may be caused by other innocent causes – the real targets – as much as by the correct one.

The legitimacy of progressive taxation comes from the Marxist−communist principle, “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need”, which is an interesting case of how “the devil is in the details”, that is, of how carefully one must observe to detect how easily and imperceptibly good things are turned into Trojan horses and ethics is reversed. When you take a close look at this principle, you notice that it opens the door to “professional” givers, “professional” receivers, “professional” handlers, and to the permissibility of dispossessing, handling and dispensing without the consent of those who produced what is being dispossessed, handled and dispensed.
Hence the foundations are laid, legitimising the basic principle of the ethics of survival, only, EXACTLY REVERSED: what you reward you get and what you penalise you don’t get, and someone is eager to commit to implementing that principle and penalising merit and rewarding merit. And within this framework someone is eager to legitimise and implement as well “professional” givers, receivers, handlers, dispossessing, handling and dispensing without the consent of the dispossessed.