[LearnAndBurn]

Sorry, removed that piece from the original post as I feared it would detract from the main point. The use of "haves" versus "have nots" was intended as an example of divide and conquer. It was not intended as two distinct groups, with obviously distinguishable beliefs. Persons shift beliefs to exploit ends that are most beneficial to them. For other readers, he's referring to:

> This is classic "Us versus Them" (divide and conquer) that systemically makes it worse for most everyone, especially the individual. One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"; while the "haves" punish you for practicing a different set of ideals or lifestyle choices that go against societal norm.

Again, I meant to show an example. Whether the "haves" or "have nots" are in camp "punish by taxes" or camp "control lifestyle" is irrelevant. Persons shift between camps, when it's convenient. Similarly, all sorts of other camps exist towards other ends.

[gnaritas]

Ok, my point is simply that notion that there exists a valid camp where haves are punished by taxes is simply false, the haves like to claim that, but it's simply not true. The haves are not punished by the system, they're rewarded by it.

[LearnAndBurn]

Again, I didn't intend to setup this argument. However, all one needs to show is that a "Have" is materially worse off thanks to taxes. This gets easier or harder depending on definitions.

Clearly, Have versus HaveNot is not binary; there is a range there. Who is a Have and who is a HaveNot? If a Have is a $20k/yearly worker and a HaveNot is without a job entirely, we could easily argue that taxes are punishing the Haves.

[gnaritas]

I don't think anyone would reasonably call 20k a year a have. In fact we've already seen a pretty good definition of the split in the 99% movement. Haves are the upper class, not the middle class and below.