It's like a dog attacks your kids. You see the owner and he says what's a dog really anyway. There are lots of kinds of dogs, some are like wolves and coyotes. Some are big and small, all different colors.

So there really isn't any such thing as a dog that attacked your kids.

You think it's up to me to define wealthy, and if I can't define it to your satisfaction then there's no such thing as wealthy and so you deserve a tax cut? It may be some surprise to you, but governments have been defining wealthy people quite successfully for millenia.

You take a list of all the people in a country from the poorest to the wealthiest. This can be done from tax returns, etc. Since the list runs from the lowest to the highest we know in mathematics that some numbers there are bigger than others. So it's easy enough to define who the top say 10% wealthiest are. Looks like your argument fell apart.

In more simple mathematics it is possible to determine what percentage of the assets of a country the top 10% have. For example it's around 50-60%. In England IIRC it's about half that. You think people can work out orbital trajectories to Mars and they can't work out who's got what assets? Please.

Now in more kindergarden mathematics the tax cut gave more refunds to some people than others. Why not just say as you have before you want the tax cut because you want the money? That's understandable but this silly "what is wealthy" argument is pointless.

As I said also it's not a tax cut because it went straight on the deficit, it's a tax loan. If they had cut spending an equal amount it would have been a tax cut but they did the opposite of that. Every red cent of the tax cut is going to be either repaid by you or your children in full.

You might have got more of the tax cut if you are "wealthy" but then your descendants will have to pay more of it. So you really got nothing at all, you profited exactly the same as if you got another credit card.