Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny. To fix an issue, you have to identify and acknowledge what’s causing it. In this case, the issue is homelessness, and the proposed solution is an additional tax on the rich. You argue against an additional tax on the rich by saying my argument frames “issue as rich vs. poor, [rather than] industrious vs. the unproductive,” but doing so implies homelessness is synonymous with being unproductive, a narrative conservatives push often. It also implies that everyone who is extremely wealthy has made their money honestly, which is actually the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. In actuality, homelessness is often attributed to rising housing costs and the socio-political norms and attitudes strongly rooted in our governing policies that enable poverty. For example, many district zoning and county lines were written during times of segregation, ultimately putting those communities at a disadvantage due to lack of income and poor school systems. Another major cause of homelessness for women is domestic violence, a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with being unproductive.
As for your argument stating man should live for himself and his well-being rather than the collective good, you must have forgotten our society is too complicated to live so selfishly, as we rely on one another too deeply in terms of commerce already. And how can you argue there’s no “we” or “society” in the UNITED States, a country built on an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism? You also mention that “a slave can be categorized as anyone who doesn’t benefit from their labor and that’s what this tax will do,” as if these millionaires aren’t going to pocket millions regardless, so I’m pretty sure that counts as ‘benefiting from their labor’.
I agree, every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because I believe that, I also believe the people in power should try their best to level out the playing field for everyone under their care by dispensing necessary resources to those who are unable to do so themselves. The theory is that by providing equal resources to everyone, you’re giving people the equal opportunity to become productive citizens in society. By supplying these resources, you’re allowing people opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise, and in doing so, you have a better chance of harvesting knowledge and creativity from poorer cities and towns that are typically at a disadvantage, which could most definitely benefit society as a collective. Say the cure for cancer is planted in the mind of someone born into poverty, but our governing policies are written to disadvantage lower-class families so the or she never receives a proper education, ultimately falling victim to our crooked judicial system only to end up in jail for a small misdemeanor. Meanwhile, politicians among the top 1% commit crimes far greater and remain in power, continuing to enforce to policies that benefit them.
Again, most of your argument is built on the claim that the wealthy make their money honestly, and purely through hard work, so they shouldn’t have to give it to give it those who are “unproductive”, discrediting all of the hard working people that live in poverty. Though it may seem so, there isn’t a direct correlation between hard work and the amount of money you earn, as you could work very little and make 6 figures or work 50-60+ hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, I’m positive that, in a society built on commerce, there wouldn’t be a loss in productivity if an additional tax on millionaires was put into place because people will ALWAYS want to make money, period. The upper-class threatening to withhold goods and services birth from their “productivity” because they’re being asked to share their resources with those they’ve robbed is an empty threat I refuse to believe.
P.s. I, one of your fellow liberal peers, forgive you for writing that article.