> It feels like taking money away from people who don't vote for you, and giving it to people who do. That's a bad direction to go down, and I'm generally skept

> It feels like taking money away from people who don't vote for you, and giving it to people who do. That's a bad direction to go down, and I'm generally skeptical about politicians who do this (which is a lot of them) I'm trying to follow this logic, but I'm struggling. Do you think that people should be able to opt out of taxes by just not voting, or voting for a third party that never wins, or strategically trying to vote for the minority party in an area that heavily leans in a certain direction? I think your interpretation of this also assumes causation in a direction that isn't at all obvious; does he want to tax Wall Street because they won't vote for him, or does Wall Street not vote for him _because_ he wants to tax them? I'd argue that Wall Street isn't likely to vote for anyone who proposes a policy to tax financial transactions, but that's far from sufficient to conclude that such a tax is unreasonable.