the problem with PGs essay was that it is full of strawmen and non sequiturs made up by him.  For example, the sentence you just described.  Let&#x27;s attack poverty - what does that mean in practice?  in practice, that means spending money on solutions to poverty, ala Sweden.  Where does that money come from?  from taxes.  So, the conversation about raising taxes on the wealthy ( or &quot;attacking wealth&quot; as he says ), outside of a very small fringe, is just really a conversation about raising funds to attack poverty.  And PG made it sound as if the conversation is about attacking wealth for its own sake, which nobody but the fringe is having