In case you don't know who this is, his name is Adam Smith - still don't have a clue? Neither did I. He was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of the political economy (whatever that means but it sounds good) that lived towards the end of the 1700's. Since I've been feeling somewhat outclassed in the quotes from the founding father's department, I found a a good one from Mr. Smith on the blogsite, ThinkingorSitting, that I found interesting.
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Sounds like Obama wasn't the first to want to 'spread the dreaded wealth'.... Hmm.
Also from a post on that site, a dcmagoo, no relation to a mrmagoo, offered up a statistic containing some interesting breakdowns of exit polls. Those who reported an income of over $200,000 (basically those who will pay more under Obama's intended tax plan) voted for him 52-48. Apparently, those who make the money aren't as worried about paying a bit more in taxes as those who wish they made that much money.