Because it makes for an unstable economy, which isn't good for business.
Yet everything they propose makes it harder for the rest of us to become wealthy on the bottom end of the "wealthy" scale.
Exponential growth.
Like the universe itself, everything is accelerating away from every other thing.
As a fundamental law of finance, my personal wealth growth curve is following an exponential curve.
That means my high-school friends who did not sacrifice partying and travel are falling further behind with each passing minute. And it means Buffet and Gates are getting further out of my reach and sight too.
It is EXACTLY the way it should be.
I'll gladly give them an account #, to which they can make a donation.
""Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
I'm reading a fascinating book right now, "The Mystery of Capital", by Hernando De Soto. It is instructive in why people in the West have prospered, relatively speaking, as opposed to those in third world countries.
It goes a long way to explain why the US can throw billions at underdeveloped countries, and very little trickles down to the population.
Buuuut....these multimillionaire/billionaire whiners never offer to level the playing field by choosing to live on $250K a year and giving the rest away.
the super rich in the USA are no longer American citizens. they are world citizens. so they will screw the USA every time.
I am almost certain that none of the nauseatingly, filthy rich executives and board members at American Airlines are concerned.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Even if we ignore the fact that those in the top 20% tend to make better monetary decisions than the bottom 20%, it still holds true, as a mathematical certainty.
If a wealthy man makes a 10% return on his investments, and a poorer man increases his wealth/income/return by 20%, the wealthy man will still far out-pace the poorer one. Simply put, ten percent of one million will always be far more than twenty percent of one-hundred-thousand.
(And that's implying that someone worth 6-figures is "poor"... the gap widens even more when you use more realistic numbers!)
It isn't about justice or equality of outcomes (not that the US could or should ever try to complete the transition from Equal Opportunity to Equal Outcomes). It's simply a way for liberal democrats to keep screaming like children, no matter what the circumstances. In reality, they're decrying the fact that mathematics exists. Sadly, we as a nation are too stupid to figure it out... and that the only way to "fix" this "problem" is to destroy the economy in a ridiculous, massive and unproductive wealth re-distribution program... which is out-right Marxism... and likely Hillary's true goal. (Her college thesis was on Saul Alinsky, a radical Marxist activist whose philosophy was basically that the ends justfy the means, and that non-activists were useless.)