If the 2006 revenue @ the100% rate scenario, as you hypothesized wouldn't balance the budget by itself, that somehow proves that taxation is not a productive source of revenue?
Reducing the deficit, short of balancing it, counts for nothing?
What about the 3 to 4 $trillion in cuts offered up by Obama, in exchange for modest tax loop-hole closures, but no tactual tax bracket increase?
They won't balance the budget, by themselves, either.
Obama's budget deal, btw, has his base absolutely livid, because it modifies the the big three social programs, with no significant revenue increase in exchange AKA: giving away the store for a song.
BTW, I paid a chunk of my paycheck (FICA), each and every week for my whole working life and therefore, I feel "entitled" to this social insurance.
6.5% of my paycheck x 52 weeks x 30 years equals a serious investment in my future.
And, if I payed into a life insurance policy, like wise, I would expect it to pay off to my beneficiaries when I died.
Not some deferred, future date, completely at the discretion of the insurance company.
What is the point of this vacant argument?
Do you get a merit badge for posting such things on Lefty blogs?