[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.