[wayoverontheright]

I oppose higher tax rates on the “rich” precisely BECAUSE of the adverse affect it will have on the poor.

The “rich” happen to have a function in the private sector, and that of course is to put excess capital at risk. Without having altruistic motives, the “rich” function as benefactors to the poor, because they are our employers and our investors.

Extracting money through taxes from the “rich” causes layoffs (harms the poor), and increased prices on everything, every product and every service, that these “rich” employers provide. This also harms the poor.

In short, the poor will pay disproportionately for the increased taxes on the “rich”.

This is the way we should be articulating our opposition to taxes on the “rich”.

[Adder]

While I totally agree, perhaps we DO let the “rich” pay more and PROVE the folly of doing so to the cretins who LOSE because of it.Rub their noses in the pile of crap they create....

The pubbies don’t have the stones to defy zero so get it over with and do it. They will NOT make friends letting us go over the cliff because of the rise of everyone’s taxes...dumbles are just waiting for that stupid move...

[Eagle of Liberty]

The “rich” happen to have a function in the private sector, and that of course is to put excess capital at risk.

There seems to be a problem with what is going on in Washington with this "Rich" debate. You know darn well that those "Representatives" in Washington, yes those RICH people in Washington, are NOT going to change the rules to cause themselves any economic harm, but those are THE PEOPLE who escape much of these debates every time!

IMO, these debates purposely set up straw men to distract the lazy reader.