"You have this budget of x dollars and you reduce income in one area does that make your expenses go away? Nope, same budget. Since most of the tax reduction is aimed at the rich who is gonna pay for this mess? Not the rich, as i said, rich people hide their tax responsibilities better. Companies usually hide them very well. Some of them hide them so well that is should be criminal"

Actually, my point is, it should (referring to expenses going away). When inflation goes up, or your income does down, you and I choose not to purchases little luxuries like dura-ace. Likewise, if the gov'ts income goes down (tax break is a reduction in income, NOT an expense), they need to tighten the belt and do without luxuries like ketchup studies. a budge is a budget

The tax reduction is not aimed at the rich, as the demo spin implies; it is across the board. Sure, the rich retain more DOLLARS; but thats becuase they pay the most already (beyond their equal percentage). In actuallity, the lower-income brackets realize the most BENEFIT (The $300 break received by the minimum-wage earner means a whole lot more to him than the $30,000 some fatcat gets)

I agree, there are more places for the rich to hide money, but the fact is that taxpayer has an unfair burden, and those shelters exist because of the huge portion of taxes he already pays. The top 10 percent of wage earners pays 50 percent of the national (wage) income (disclaimer, please dont quote me on that, my recollecion from macro may not be accurate - regardless, its quite lopsided). Why should they pay a higher rate when they get no more benefit than you or I ? (putting the higher RATE aside, in principle I'm opposed to a percentage based income tax in general, let alone a graduated rate - the realist in me knows percentage is the only affordable program, though).

I totallly agree with you on corporate taxes. cant argue