By conventional free market principles, no. But by wealth redistribution logic, there is a case to be made for a liberal tax.
Liberals have played the wealth redistribution game, transforming the economy into a shell game for taking money from some and giving it to others based on income. A progressive smoothie tax follows that same logic.
Studies have shown that liberals on average earn more than conservatives. (It helps to be in a line of work where it’s nearly impossible to be fired, such as a university or certain unions.) And paying more for a smoothie, just means that they are paying their “fair share”.
Obama has been a big believer in wealth redistribution. So what’s wrong with a little wealth redistribution at the smoothie level anyway?
We can either have a society where people work and earn, and are treated equally. Or we can have a society whose whole purpose is to redistribute wealth. And considering that liberals are among the wealthiest Americans, they might not find such a society to their liking.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America’s wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.
If the left really wants a class war, it might just begin in a smoothie hut.