How Would You Respond to Ben Shapiro's Argument about Taxes?

  (source: Wikimedia Commons)

"It's not moral to steal other people's wealth just because you are poorer than they are." - Ben Shapiro      

(source: Youtube | The Rubin Report)

In case you do not know him yet, Ben Shapiro is a popular conservative and libertarian political commentator who is embraced by the right because of his sharp arguments and knowledge. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that he is intelligent and a good debater.

Just like many on the right, he disavows progressive taxes and extensive social welfare programs (which can be seen as an element of socialism and is embraced by the left). One of the core arguments that he relies on is: the government or other people have no moral right to his, Jeff Bezo's or anyone else's money. A democratic authorization of heavily taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth through welfare (e.g. healthcare, education, etc.) does not make it moral. If there are three people in the room, A and B vote to take away C's money, it is still not moral. It is just like theft. This is a strong argument. If you are for progressive taxes for social welfare programs, or you are just a fiscally conservative wanting to have some intellectual brainstorming, how would you counter that argument?

I am not going to argue for or against heavy taxes on the rich. But, since that I do not see many good counter arguments from the left, I just want to bring up an argument that I think could be a strong one. When Shapiro asks, "How is that moral?" To counter that argument, someone can argue from a utilitarian position and say the following:

If we want to talk about what is moral, then we will have to look at what maximizes social net benefit by minimizing suffering and maximizing gain in the society. If there are three people, A, B and C in the room, and A and B suffer from health problems and cannot afford the high costs of health care. Letting them suffer or die is not moral. Helping them is moral. If we know C is extremely rich, then we can use C's money to help A and B. We are not taking C's money to give A and B leisure. And we cannot rely on people's charity because it is not effective.

Why else is it moral? If in the next turn, some disaster occurs and C loses most of his money (which is not rare in reality), C will be able to receive temporary financial relief, health care or even career training from that pool of money. And if A and B have become more wealthy from the help from the last turn (i.e. they ended up living a healthy life and got educated), then they would have to contribute back to that pool of money. Everyone is equally entitled to welfare and equally obligated to contribute. 

We have to keep in mind that a dollar means something different to different people. $1000 means nothing to Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, but it means a lot to a family that struggles for every meal. If we look beyond the numbers and look at the real intrinsic value behind the bills, we know that using the taxes collected from the rich in the right way can directly create a lot of extra social benefits and prevent more suffering. 

If people become healthier and more educated, then in the long run, we have more human capital in the country, and it in turn benefits everybody in the society, including the big corporations. 

Again, I am not arguing for or against anything, but here is the argument that I think could be a good counter.

By the way, because of how good he is at gathering support, I would not be surprised if he becomes the president one day.

It is free to subscribe to this blog. Support me by following me on Facebook or Twitter. Cancel anytime as you wish.