It's simple math Con. If you want to increase revenue but cause the least amount of pain from a tax hike, you hit up the rich.
So even if those 47% that you claim aren't paying FIT are forced to pay FIT, that would reduce their desire to consume and thus have a negative effect on the economy. Those 47% spend every penny they make while the top 5% have far more than enough and are more likely to save their excess.
A man without fear is a fool, a man that succumbs to his fear is a coward and a brave man acknowledges fear yet presses on.
Why do the rightwingers insist on repeating this straw man?
Is it because they can't defend their nonsense slogan about how tax cuts create jobs?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...more-jobs.html ("Lower taxes leads to more jobs")
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
It doesn't look like you have ever looked at the budget of the United States. Suggest you go there and get the line items of both revenue and expenses. Let me help you, educate yourself.
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
A CEO of a big corporation tends to rake in a lot of money. But by no means is he (it's usually a "he"; would you like to suggest that women don't have the same drive as men do?) able to do so alone. To keep his offices clean, he has to hire janitors, and I wonder how much they make? In addition, he probably has a lot of workers for him, especially he runs a manufacturing or energy company. Unless they're unionized, they probably don't make a lot; and if the laborers are overseas, they may make pennies every hour. His office has to have running water; that water is provided by public servants who don't make near what he makes. To get to his office, he had to take a car, or taxi, or limo, or perhaps helicopter. That consumes gas, and remember what I said about laborers in energy companies? Furthermore, those roads had to be paved and occasionally repaved, and that takes labor. To even get where he is in the first place, he had to be taught in a classroom, and don't even get me started about how badly teachers are underpaid.
And that's just for him. That does not include the building of society off the back of laborers. Or the building of our economy, if we go far enough back, off the backs of people who were paid absolutely nothing. Or the development of European society, which was built on the back of practically the entire continent of Africa.
Conservative, you guys want to make it sound like that the rich just magically work their way up to the top, and nobody takes a hit for it on the way up. I really do not understand how you have deluded yourselves so, but I can tell you this: It's one of the greatest lies in our society today.