In response to:

What Price 'Fairness'?

Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 6:10 AM
What I love is the arbitrary definition of "rich." That $250,000 figure is something someone pulled out of a hat. And before you start yammering on about "that represents the top one percent" or whatever it actually represents (the actual pecentage is inconsequential), what that number's actually saying is that someone who earns $249,999.99 a year is NOT "rich." "The Rich" is an arbitrary term that basically means "anyone who makes more than you do." So raising taxes on "the Rich" sounds fine to people too lazy to understand what it means. Here's the problem, though. If you raise taxes on "the Rich" too much, they aren't "rich" anymore. When the need for revenues goes up again, who gets to pay the bill?
Realistic Republicans understand that President Obama and the Democrats head into fiscal cliff negotiations in a far stronger bargaining position now than in 2011. When voters were asked on Nov. 6 whether they favored raising taxes to reduce the deficit, a total of 60 percent said yes (47 percent favored increasing taxes for those who earn $250,000 or more, and 13 percent approved tax increases for all).

So taxes will be going up. As a matter of political strategy -- not to say survival -- Republicans will have to agree to raise taxes on those defined as rich. It's...