THe question WAS NOT would you support or oppose a tax cut that didn't apply to YOU. The question was given a choice between two tax INCREASES, one that increases YOUR taxes, and one that doesn't, which would you pick? If you tell me you would pick yours, you are either a liar or a sucker.
Whoa! I'm late to this discussion and I don't really have a side in your interchange here, but I want to interject a thought for the purpose of clarity.
And, Lord help me, I'm going to use a term of A. Rand for the purposes of simplicity. (Oh, the list of people that will get a kick out of this is fairly long.)
Ayn used a concept about self interest being a factor in making decisions. But she always called it "enlightened self interest". Now that qualifier is what we need here.
Enlightened implies looking ahead, judging the whole, looking at secondary effects and the similar detailed analysis.
I may oppose things that seem to be in my initial interest, not out of altruism, or principle alone, but often out of taking the long view.
Efforts to place the tax burden on the ten percent making the most money as an interest group that had little ability to prevent that burden have always been opposed by me on principle, but also on "enlightened self interest"...I always expected to eventually be amongst that group.
Now, I have spent a few years, with the exception of this past year, happily falling in that category. This year hasn't been all that nice to me.
But does that change the long view for me? Nope.
So let's keep the disagreement away from first effects. And let's not assume that looking at simple answers will give us simple truths.