It cost the burglar when he could not open the safe. He sued and won.
Obama: "There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." Amen.
That's what someone wrote on their FB page. Amen. I'm a little taken back with Obama's chutzpah in saying that Uncle Sam would be spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts if he'd reduce taxes. One spends money when they buy something. They don't "spend" when they stop taking what isn't theirs.
Would such a "reduction" reduce or enlarge the deficit? Even if we had an eight-ball, we still wouldn't know. So many other factors come into play that the effect of one action gets lost in the mix.
I like to remember that anyone who is earning a billion dollars is not only supporting many many lives, but may be plenty of taxes (depending on whether the earnings are from income or dividends... and what loopholes are employed). At 25%, it would be $250,000,000. That is much more than that person benefits in terms of goods and services provided by Uncle Sam. Is it their fair share? Because they can afford more, should we take it? And is that the gauge—what someone can afford?
Sounds a little like Karl Marx, "From each works according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Majorities have a scary amount of power in a democracy.