Alternative #1: Pass a bill extending all Bush tax cuts including the high dollar rate reduction, knowing Obamao will veto it and the minority Demonrats cast many votes for it but not enough to override the veto. Then the Democrats say: "We tried to help but that top dollar tax cut was too much for the POTUS. Republicans are running this place but we did our best to help. Don't blame us when the GOP is more interested in fighting than in cutting taxes."
Alternative #2: Pass a bill, then or later, with extensions of EVERY Bush tax cut except the high dollar rate cut. Demonrats are forced to vote for it and defend it or be blamed for defeating the estate tax abolition, the abolition of the marriage penalty and what not. Whether Obamao vetoes or not. Whether Congress overrides or not.
Are you saying: "No tax cuts for anyone unless the big guys get theirs." That would be saying that their high dollar rate cut is more important than any other cut. Why is that "class warfare" (the "class warfare" card is the GOP equivalent of the Demonratic race card as a tactic. It is supposewd to preclude rational debate and force everyone into line against their will or not.) I don't know about you but I go for Alternative 2. If anyone disagrees, make the most of it.
Also, as I believe you previously pointed out, tax rate cuts tend to produce more not less revenue from the wealthy and a greater not lesser "profit" to the gummint. That is supply side economic doctrine and was proven true under Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan. That is not the belief of the general public however. The Demonrats like revenue enhancement a lot but not enough to give up their cherished hobby and policy of punishing the rich just for being rich and relentlessly propagandizing for that punishment, lying through their collective teeth every inch of the way. Republicans usually, in their capacity as the "stupid party" simply cannot get off the dime and stop reflexive knee jerk support for all things assisting the affluent.
inally, I find it unlikely that you have no objection "to any 'benefit to the affluent.'" I had asked another poster whether in the eternal struggle against "class warfare" (that cliche again), he would favor rewarding those making more than $250,000 per year by canceling every tax on that income from dollar one. If that were OK, how about federal matching funds to double the incomes (tax free) of such folks since they are said to be so verrrrry irreplaceably valuable to our society. I suspect those are two examples of benefits to the affluent to which you would object. If not, you are a hopeless case and ought not to be making political decisions without a conservator.
We should of course, keep in mind that the revenue enhancement has limits. The laffer curve is a curve, after all.
If we reduced tax rates to .01%, revenues would decrease despite the increased economic activity.
To some degree, ANY tax code is a form of social engineering. The type of tax you choose, exemptions, etc. affect how people behave and there will be winners and losers.
Elk isn’t interested in punishing the rich, but just like those who support fair trade, he is certainly tired of the local realtors’ groups promoting Property tax increases that hit regular folks, and the local state affiliates of the Chambers of Commerce that promote state income taxes, thinking that it means they’ll be spared. Finally, the bandwagon-jumping most businesses do in their political contributions. You can maintain it is only rational, in a cynical, utilitarian sort of way. That kind of behavior begs for a response. Even though these folks don’t think of themselves as class warriors, they are playing the fixed-size pie game as well.
Which will do absolutely nothing to help dig us out of the hole we are in. If reviving the economy in order to produce jobs is the #1 priority, you'll have done nothing to achieve that aim.
Better to stand fast...and try to break the back of the opposition...rather than be bought off for a mere tuppence.
Most people understand this now. We can win the argument...and the nation will be better off if we do, in fact, win it.