Arbitrarily defining larger numbers as "more than they deserve" does not justify theft
Whenever a person of ample means -- especially one of the world's few billionaires -- stands to gain from a decrease in taxes or even to receive a tax return, the refrain from the left is as predictable as it is specious: "Republicans in congress are giving money to the rich!" in some variation or another (the most disgustingly misleading ones call it "subsidizing the rich"). Often times, the histrionics will come garnished with all manner of ideas of "better" uses for the money: free college tuition, feeding orphans and Universal Puppy Rescue.
There are two glaring issues with this reasoning.
The first problem is the unfounded assumption that the person receiving the tax break/return will not accomplish anything good with the returned funds. It is somehow always assumed that they'll simply buy a new yacht and hoard the rest. The idea that these billionaires wouldn't also engage in humanitarian causes is absurd; as is that these efficiency-obsessed businessmen wouldn't do so with greater efficiency than the notoriously wasteful federal government. It seems likely that the Koch Foundation's charitable works likely gets more value to the needy per overall dollar invested than any comparable federal agency.
It is also amusing that the left loves Keynes when it's time to steer markets and spend government money, but magically forget about the alleged job-creating powers of broken windows and deny that no yacht builders will be given jobs because the billionaire bought one. Why is a billionaire spending billions somehow less helpful than a bureaucrat spending billions?
The second problem is the idea that others somehow have a higher claim to these billionaires' earnings. It is important to not mince words here: any tax break or return or decrease is the return of confiscated funds to their original owner. It will not be productive to argue "taxation is theft" here; but it is also important to be clear that the funds were -- justified or not -- confiscated from their original owner. Thus a tax break, return or decrease of a tax is the return of funds to their original owner.
Thus the argument which states that "the rich" don't deserve tax breaks when that money could be spent on INSERT PET CAUSE HERE is, in essence "my use for other peoples' money is more important than their use of their money simply because they are 'rich'."
It is the idea that, because a person's income is over some arbitrary line you've defined as "more than they deserve" that whatsoever supposedly charitable use you can put their confiscated funds to is a higher claim than their own. It is important that people are sure to complain about these tax breaks "for the rich", as if earning some larger of quantity of moneys somehow gives you less right to what is yours than someone who earns some smaller quantity of moneys.
It is absurd; a person's rights should not change based upon their income.
Thomas Shirk is a computer programmer, Voluntaryist and aspiring philosopher. Please come back to his blog or follow him on Facebook and Steemit for regular updates on Voluntaryism, capitalism and other philosophical insights