What is the logic behind insisting revenue increases must at least match spending cuts?

This is what the Republicans are insisting on, and even then they may not go along with any revenue increases. I am trying to figure out the arithmetic behind this. It is like telling a company that every extra dollar of revenue has to be matched by at least a dollar less in expenses. Huh? If we carry the argument to its ultimate end, the government would end up with lots of money and nothing that it could spend it on.

What the Republicans are really saying is that every extra dollar taken from the rich has to matched by at least a dollar taken away from the poor and middle classes. I fail to see either the logic or the equity in this.