Taxing the Rich: A Look at the Arguments
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Michael Hall
As of today, no one has created a government and economic system that is perfect. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, and some are definitely better than others. Here in the United States we have a democratic government with a capitalistic economic system. Many could argue that it is the best system yet devised. But, it is not perfect. Those imperfections are the target of the arguments proposed by Rhonda Burns, Paul Craig Roberts, and Dan Moran. However, these proposed arguments fail due to the fact that the authors used emotion through connotative terminology rather than logic to support their arguments.
All three of the authors used connotative terminology to further their arguments. For example, in “Downsizing the Middle Class,” Rhonda Burns used many connotative words and phrases, such as: regressed, survival of the fittest, golden parachutes, down the river, downsizing, outsourcing, fat cats, worm, tearing up, and greed (127-128). This language is used to distort the audience’s civilized view of capitalism to a much more primal view. Also, in “The Poor Have Enslaved the Rich,” Paul Craig Roberts uses some highly suggestive terminology, such as: Internal Revenue Service, democracy, chains, slaves, exploited, and freedom (129-130).
These terms are used in his article to equate our modern capitalistic society with that of slavery. It plays on the American public’s most prized value—freedom. And Dan Moran, in his article “King’s Ransom,” also uses emotive language to further his case, such as: empire, vast, sprawling, shopping around, wounded to the heart, imperial delusions, and serfs (131-133). The language used in this article associates our current capitalistic society with that of medieval feudalism. All three articles use connotative terminology with the overall objective of changing the audience’s perception of their place in society from equal to the exploited.
The absence of evidence and logical fallacies in Moran’s article cause the argument to fail. In his article, Burns states, “To keep the money machine working smoothly the rich have bought all the politicians from the top down…[which results in] both political parties busily tearing up all the regulations that protect the rest of us from the greed of the rich” (127-128). Now there are several problems with this statement.
First of all, Burns gives no sufficient evidence to back up this statement. The only ‘evidence’ that Burns uses to support this claim is that the “rich” donate money at fundraisers to influence the President. This may be true; however, Burns shows no evidence linking the donations to actual changes in presidential policy. Had he done so, his evidence may have been more compelling. But the result of Burns failure to include this information is that his evidence remains unsubstantiated.
Another problem is that Burns supplies no evidence linking the political parties to “tearing up” our protective legislation. Without sufficient evidence, this statement fails. Yet another problem with the above statement is that it commits the hasty generalization fallacy. One example of this is when Burns states “the rich have bought all the politicians” (127). Now even if we assume that his fundraising example is correct, one occurrence is not representative of the whole group. The fact that one politician is bought does not lead to the fact that all politicians are bought. It just does not follow. So due to the lack of evidence and generalizations made, Burns argument fails to be convincing.
Roberts fails to make a successful argument due to his numerous logical fallacies. For example, Roberts states “In the United States today, the rich are the equivalent of slaves in the 19th century. The only real difference is that they are owned by the government instead of by private owners” (129). This statement is a great example of a faulty analogy. Roberts attempts to make a comparison between the upper-class of modern society with the institution of slavery. But there can be no comparison. There are innumerable differences between the two groups. Slaves were kidnapped from their families in their home country. They were transported to America in the most inhumane conditions imaginable. They were forced to labor in the fields and had to work hard just to keep alive.
And then you have the upper class. They have enough wealth to live lives of luxury even after the government has taxed them. Their net income is much more than most would ever dream of. Attempting to make a comparison between these two groups is definitely a faulty analogy, if not an injustice. Roberts also plays on the ambiguity of the word free and commits a fallacy of suppressed evidence when he states: “Any American who imagines he is free can put it to a test by trying to hold on to all of his income” (130). The problem arises when we examine the meaning of freedom.
What does it mean to be free? Does it mean that we are all free to do as we choose? Of course not; that would be anarchy. With freedom comes responsibility. We are obligated as free people to do what is in the best interest of society, or as John Stuart Mill would say, to promote the general happiness of society. So, for example, if taxes contribute to the greater good of society, it is our responsibility to pay them.
Moran’s argument fails due to his use of logical fallacies to support his argument. For example, when examining the reading habits of students, Moran states that he “must always remind him that if he doesn’t move on to deciphering the courtly double entendres in Love’s Labour’s Lost he will end up wearing a name tag and hairnet for his entire life” (132). This statement is an example of the false dichotomy logical fallacy because it offers two unlikely alternatives that are portrayed as the only options. Moran is basically saying that if you do not examine classical literature, you will never amount to anything. But this is obviously untrue.
There are many who do not find the classics interesting, yet they do find interest in other fields and excel in that area. They do not fail in their academic careers because they neglected one branch of study. So, like the other articles, this argument fails because of its numerous logical fallacies.
Overall, none of the three articles succeeded in being persuasive. Though the authors were effective in their use of connotative terminology, they neglected to examine the logic behind their arguments prior to publishing them. Had they spent a little more time constructing these arguments through logical rather than emotive means, they may have proved successful. However, these proposed arguments fail due to the fact that the authors used emotion through connotative terminology rather than logic to support their arguments.
Burns, Rhonda. “Downsizing the Middle Class.” Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 5th ed. New York: McGraw, 2006. 127-128.
Moran, Dan. “King’s Ransom.” Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 5th ed. New York: McGraw, 2006. 131-133.
Roberts, Paul Craig. “The Poor Have Enslaved the Rich.” Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 5th ed. New York: McGraw, 2006. 129-130.
Leave a reply