Now wait a minute! If I understand him correctly, it IS the case for the average American. The case for the average American is that they pay lower percentages in taxes than the "rich" Americans. This is called a graduated taxation system, as opposed to a Flat % fair and square rate, for everyone(but then you knew that). If Democrats like you won this argument, there would be no tax-cuts without further skewing the system to punish the rich even more(by comparison to pre-cut rate schedules)...not a good thing, IMO. To argue as you do, is exactly akin to arguing for higher rates for the rich, pure and simple. Becuase we are looking at cuts, you easily gloss over that reality with the ever present implication that the tax cut ITSELF skews the benefit more to the rich(it does not, since percentages for rich and poor remain as they were with Bush tax-cuts. Yours is the argument that would further skew the percentages paid by rich VS poor...the Bush Cuts don't do this either way. I don't want a world where the rich are punished with an even greater taxation disparity than they now suffer from. After all, these rich folks on balance typically DO get good things done(helping us all - they surely include the best and brightest, too) and work very hard for their money, so don't hurt 'em any more, ok?
Freedom Works,
Dan B
Dan B |
