Sophistry: a plausible (to an ignoramus) but erroneous (seriously, in this case) argument.

Thunder thighs said this recently:

The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues that confront the United States and other nations, whether it is individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are.

Then she offered up an example. Brazil has the highest tax-to-G.D.P. rate in the Western hemisphere. And guess what? Its growing like crazy. The rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it to our regret, in my opinion. My view is that you have to get many countries to increase their public revenues.

Someone needs to inform this ignorant nitwit that real economic growth-real wealth creation-is not and cannot be created merely by increasing the level of confiscatory taxation on whomever you deem as “rich.” The only thing that grows under that misguided paradigm is government and those beholding to more and higher degrees of redistribution.

If what Mrs Clinton is actually referring to is more government employment, well then let’s run the table and define the “rich” as anyone who earns more than $99,999, and tax them at 100% of their earnings over this imaginary point of total sufficiency.. Let’s just see what happens, shall we?

In reality, increased levels of confiscatory taxation impel the propensity for government employment, and government entitlements, to grow, and for more and more far reaching control over the lives of individuals and businesses. But such is only a short run effect, in the long run you actually end up not with Brazil, or with sustainable full employment, but rather Greece! That’s the real axiom, madame. That is the actual lesson of history. Ignore it at your (and sadly, our) peril.

As for Brazil.. please. Here are the actual tax rates for Brazil: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/brazil/brazil_taxe…

Something tells me this is not what Mrs Clinton is advocating for here (essentially, Reaganomics). She is merely commenting on the Brazilian effects of essentially implementing laffer-curve taxation, but this is nothing to crow about nor can it be the cause of whatever real wealth creation is taking place in Brazil. The mere fact that their “tax to GDP” is relatively high is a non-sequitur.

Hillary would never admit this, but the fact of the matter is that lowered marginal tax rates (please note that dividend income is not taxed in Brazil) coupled with taxing low income people (which she would never advocate for here in the U.S.), has resulted in significant inflows of earned income to the state. While a greedy statist might see this as virtuous, anyone with an iota of respect for individual rights sees this as an abomination. It was an abomination when Reagan and the Bush’s promoted it, it is an abomination in Brazil as well.

The real question is what would have been the case in Brazil WITHOUT, for example, marginal rate surtaxes on corporations or lowered taxation international investments and investors?

To argue that the tax revenues which have flowed into the statist realm of Brazil are due to confiscatory taxing of the “rich” is simply sophistry. Don’t be suckered into this one..