This just might help. When common folk see that she paid more in taxes than most of us will make in 15 years, the whole "tax cuts for the rich" argument is alot weaker. It's one thing for JFnK to spout out his statistics about the top .1%, er, I mean, 1%, but it is another for people to see what that 1% actually PAYS.
She had nearly 6 million in income and paid less than 800 thousand in taxes. That means she paid about 13 or 14 percent of her income in taxes.
I pay a greater rate that that. They tax people who earn money by working at high rates. The super rich pay very little in taxes. That is why the super rich from Bill Gates to Warren Buffet support the Democrats.
High tax rates are charged to people who are climbing the ladder of success. That means people trying to compete with Gates can't. That means someone trying to start a new Ketchup company has the deck stacked against them and Heinz has it stacked for them. The owners of Heinz have a huge advantage. The tax laws the Democrats enacted gives them a huge break. It is the guy starting from the bottom and trying to work his way to the top that is handicapped by the tax laws.
That is why 10 of the 10 richest Americans are all Democrats.
Just to clarify, aren't you really suggesting that the 'whole "tax cuts for the rich" argument' is actually the 'let's tax the rich' argument? What I mean is, the dims are arguing for a 'let's soak the rich' approach to taxes, while the replublicans are arguing for reduced taxes for the upper bracket taxpayers, the reason being that these are the folks who create jobs by investing their capital in entrepreneurism. Still, I know what you mean. I think.