Kerry was engaging in class warfare in its ugliest form. His analysis that only the two candidates and the moderator would be affected is equivalent to saying: "Hey, you folks are the little guys. This tax hike isn't going to hurt you. It's only going to hurt the big guys, and therefore, you should embrace it."
Let me tell you something, Mr. Kerry. The fact that a particular tax is borne by the few at the benefit of the many does not make it fair, and reeks of the principles of Karl Marx ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.") The goal of the democrats is to find the exact spot where 51% of the voters would pay no taxes and be beholden to the democrats, while the other 49% would shoulder the full burden and vote fruitlessly for the republican candidates. A close look at the tax system in this country will demonstrate that we are almost at that point, and Kerry's proposals will speed the way.
The fact that a tax only applies to certain people does not make it a fair tax. On the contrary, it makes it blatantly unfair. Suppose I propose a tax of a billion dollars a year on all couples named Bill and Melinda Gates. The tax would raise a fairly substanital amount of revenue while only affecting a very, very tiny number of voters, i.e., two. And, they could clearly afford it. Does that make it right?
There is an old saw about the possible tyranny of democracy when majority rule is applied in the absence of fairness. It is the tale of two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for dinner.
No, if you want to make it right, you'd have to change the names to Teresa Heinz and Liveshot Kerry. Then it would be right! ;-)