[linn37]

From what I have read about it is that it doesn’t increase tax revenue enough to fix the problem and it also causes a loss in jobs.

[JediJones]

Another problem is that there will never be an end to how much the “rich” should be taxed. It would eventually get to France’s 75%. The Dems will ALWAYS say we need to tax them more and ALWAYS put the Republicans in the position of saying, “No, we can’t raise taxes on the rich.”

Kristol’s right that this IS an unpopular position. Far more unpopular with the voters than the public’s stance on social issues. I think it’s easier to make the moral case for a flat tax with no deductions than it is to argue how much of a higher rate the rich should pay. The latter becomes a judgment call. The former is a bedrock moral principle that can be defended on the level of fairness. Why is “fair share” not defined as everyone paying the same percentage on all of their income? How is everyone being charged the same rate unfair?

[chimera]

That's the point. It may not hurt a lot, but it sure won't solve the problem of a $16 trillion debt. I read somewhere that Obama's proposal to tax "the rich" might bring in another $80 billion. Just the other day Harry Reid was talking about raising the debt ceiling another $2.7 trillion. Assuming the 'Rats spend up to the new limit (and you know they will), just yearly interest payments alone on the extra $2.7 trillion in debt will gobble up the $80 billion, and more. So why bother?

The reason is, of course, that it buys the 'Rats more votes. Like the 'Rats they are, the 'Rats aren't interested in solving the problem, they just want to pander and buy votes. I really, really wish the electorate would understand this. But they don't, and they don't care. They just want Santa Claus to give them toys. And that means 'Rats.