[griswold3]

I, for one, would like to see them ‘raise’ taxes on the rich just to see their reaction when the ‘expected’ increase does not materialize.

[Mach9]

Ah, but the dems keep a whole volume on definitions for “rich.” When they’re pitching a tax-rise, the rich are private plane owners, or billionaires, or millionaires. But when they get down to voting, the rich are suddenly deflated to $200K/person or $250K/couple. And then, it’s anyone not currently on the sacrosanct list of those who pay no taxes. And sacrosanct it will remain for as long as democrats retain any power at all.

[Tex52]

They don't ever learn. Question to Liberal:”Why hasn't raising taxes led to lower deficits?” Answer:”Because we haven't taxed enough.” Question: “ When will have taxed enough?” Answer: “When the deficit falls.” There is no answer from the left, but government rule. As our President says, “Democracy keeps getting in the way.”

[Tex52]

They don't ever learn. Question to Liberal:”Why hasn't raising taxes led to lower deficits?” Answer:”Because we haven't taxed enough.” Question: “ When will have taxed enough?” Answer: “When the deficit falls.” There is no answer from the left, but government rule. As our President says, “Democracy keeps getting in the way.”

[tet68]

As regards their taxing the “rich”, in reality they
are only taxing a minor percentage of that one or two
percent considered rich, and that is the bottom
of the category, the super rich will end up paying
nothing extra, perhaps adding another tax lawyer or
three. Again, it’s the small American who has just
climbed into the bracket that will pay the most.