Liberals for wealth redistribution

[Gadawg73]

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

Some states collect NO income taxes.
If I buy a gallon of milk and the guy behind me buys one income plays no past in it.
The same should be true of all taxes. Income should never be taxed.
You get more of what you reward. Income taxes PUNISH.

 

[Cuyo]

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

Some states collect NO income taxes.
If I buy a gallon of milk and the guy behind me buys one income plays no past in it.
The same should be true of all taxes. Income should never be taxed.
You get more of what you reward. Income taxes PUNISH.

By in large, the taxes you pay go to support the infrastructure of the society in which you're able to make your money. I don't know what you do, but I'm willing to bet you depend upon things like highways, air traffic control, and a million other government programs you never think of but count on every day.

 

[editec]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

By your goofy notion of socialism, paying YOU your benefits (which I believe you are owed) is stealing from private citizens, too.

We've been over this before, haven't we?

Let's agree to never do it again.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you have to work that much, it's not "wealth", it's just a wage.

Ok, then a wage that rises very fast monthly for the last 30 years.
Call it what you want.
It is not what you earn, it is what YOU KEEP.
And I keep a lot. Didn't catch that fish working.

So what are you complaining about? Taxes now are lower than they've been for most of your working life.

Wrong. What do you know about my businesses or any business?
My state and local taxes are much higher. Some of my investment property, raw land, is now taxed as residential instead of agricultural. Taxes are ten times more. And in the economy you can not give it away. Indexing of taxation causes a jump in tax rates.
Are you claiming that taxation keeps track with inflation? LOL. Taxes increase at a steeper curve through rises in one's income versus the inflation rate recently.
User fees are high as hell and they are a TAX. Professionallicenses are taxes.
The list goes on and on.
Do the math. For someone that is just middle class they pay 8% in social security tax, 6 % in state income tax, 6% in sales tax, 20% in Federal tax and around 5% in property, vehicle and other taxes.
That would be 45% in taxes.

 

[Gadawg73]

And who is bitching?
I am posting facts.

 

[rdean]

I have zero doubt if you quite raping the rich the economy will boom.
that is the reason we went from 70% on the highest brackets.

Bush gave the top 1% 52% of a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut. Yea, good. They made more jobs.

IN CHINA.

Everything is so skewed towards the ultra rich and the Republican base feels "sorry" for them.

How much of the middle class use airlines over the rich? How much do the rich use EVERYTHING over the middle class? The rich should pay more to maintain it.

The middle class cares about the military because their kids make up the vast bulk of the military. Shouldn't the ultra rich pay in "money" because they sure as hell ain't paying in "kids". Put a price on those "kids". That's what the rich should pay.

If you make everything "simple", like the Republicans do, then if you agree with what they say, you may be a "simpleton". Things in the real world are more complex.

Start looking at the "big picture".

 

[Meister]

I have zero doubt if you quite raping the rich the economy will boom.
that is the reason we went from 70% on the highest brackets.

Bush gave the top 1% 52% of a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut. Yea, good. They made more jobs.

IN CHINA.

Everything is so skewed towards the ultra rich and the Republican base feels "sorry" for them.

How much of the middle class use airlines over the rich? How much do the rich use EVERYTHING over the middle class? The rich should pay more to maintain it.

The middle class cares about the military because their kids make up the vast bulk of the military. Shouldn't the ultra rich pay in "money" because they sure as hell ain't paying in "kids". Put a price on those "kids". That's what the rich should pay.

If you make everything "simple", like the Republicans do, then if you agree with what they say, you may be a "simpleton". Things in the real world are more complex.

Start looking at the "big picture".

Incredible.....

 

[Contumacious]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

The Sixteenth Amendment was sponsored by the "progressives" and many people doubt that it was properly ratified.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Like it or not, you belong to a society. As part of a society you are expected to contribute based on your ability to pay and what you draw from the society.
The members of the society decide, through their elected representatives who pays what and who receives what. The wealthy benefit more from the society and they also use more in terms of how the society protects their ability to earn money, how the society provides trained workers, how the society provides security and how the society protects against international competion
In the last 30 years there has been a redistribution of wealth due to the revised tax structure. It has grown to the point where 90% of available wealth is controlled by 10% of the people. The remaining 90% of the people fight over the remaining 10%.
It is time to tweak ehe way wealth is distributed to allow the working level to retain more of their income to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, education and healthcare

 

[rdean]

I have zero doubt if you quite raping the rich the economy will boom.
that is the reason we went from 70% on the highest brackets.

Bush gave the top 1% 52% of a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut. Yea, good. They made more jobs.

IN CHINA.

Everything is so skewed towards the ultra rich and the Republican base feels "sorry" for them.

How much of the middle class use airlines over the rich? How much do the rich use EVERYTHING over the middle class? The rich should pay more to maintain it.

The middle class cares about the military because their kids make up the vast bulk of the military. Shouldn't the ultra rich pay in "money" because they sure as hell ain't paying in "kids". Put a price on those "kids". That's what the rich should pay.

If you make everything "simple", like the Republicans do, then if you agree with what they say, you may be a "simpleton". Things in the real world are more complex.

Start looking at the "big picture".

Incredible.....

Too hard for you to understand fool? The majority of the military come from the middle class. People like Bush went into the champagne unit filled with the sons of senators and rich fathers. If the rich are going to get preferred treatment, why shouldn't they pay for it?

It's just that simple. Try thinking it through Meisterbater.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

Make it appear? Something like 50 percent of the population do not pay any income tax after factoring everything in. The rich are what are paying the taxes.

How is it FAIR to claim cause you make more then me you should pay a higher percentage of your earnings in income?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let us consider the 1950s. We started building the Interstate system then. Our rate of economic growth was very healthy. What was the tax rate then on the wealthy? On the Middle Class? On the working Poor?

The tax rate on the wealthy was 75 to 90% and they still lived in mansions and drove Rolls Royce.

If you can come to this country and become a billionaire, why not invest so that the good news keeps on coming. How does it help if the wealthy just squeeze and squeeze?

Republicans don't understand that if the "golden goose" is cooked, only the few eat once. Everyone will eventually starve.

So not only do you believe it would be right for the Government to illegally seize private citizens money if they have more then YOU happen to think is enough, but you would like for the Government to force those same rich people to spend their money how YOU see fit?

Do not EVER claim Republicans are out to screw the people after this claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

Some states collect NO income taxes.
If I buy a gallon of milk and the guy behind me buys one income plays no past in it.
The same should be true of all taxes. Income should never be taxed.
You get more of what you reward. Income taxes PUNISH.

By in large, the taxes you pay go to support the infrastructure of the society in which you're able to make your money. I don't know what you do, but I'm willing to bet you depend upon things like highways, air traffic control, and a million other government programs you never think of but count on every day.

And so the Government can illegally decide to seize any amount of your personal wealth over what they deem appropriate?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

By your goofy notion of socialism, paying YOU your benefits (which I believe you are owed) is stealing from private citizens, too.

We've been over this before, haven't we?

Let's agree to never do it again.

Talk about a strawman. I have no problem with Government taxing us, nor in the Government paying legal obligations. NONE of which is what this or the other thread is about, as you full well know. You and your leftist buddies are bemoaning the fact that you want the Government to set some limit on what a private citizen can have as personal wealth and to SEIZE every dollar over that amount.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Like it or not, you belong to a society. As part of a society you are expected to contribute based on your ability to pay and what you draw from the society.
The members of the society decide, through their elected representatives who pays what and who receives what. The wealthy benefit more from the society and they also use more in terms of how the society protects their ability to earn money, how the society provides trained workers, how the society provides security and how the society protects against international competion
In the last 30 years there has been a redistribution of wealth due to the revised tax structure. It has grown to the point where 90% of available wealth is controlled by 10% of the people. The remaining 90% of the people fight over the remaining 10%.
It is time to tweak ehe way wealth is distributed to allow the working level to retain more of their income to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, education and healthcare

Another leftwinger admitting he would not mind if the Government illegally set a personal wealth limit and then went about seizing all assets above that limit. Hate to break it to you BUT that is not covered in the Constitution.

 

[Meister]

Like it or not, you belong to a society. As part of a society you are expected to contribute based on your ability to pay and what you draw from the society.
The members of the society decide, through their elected representatives who pays what and who receives what. The wealthy benefit more from the society and they also use more in terms of how the society protects their ability to earn money, how the society provides trained workers, how the society provides security and how the society protects against international competion
In the last 30 years there has been a redistribution of wealth due to the revised tax structure. It has grown to the point where 90% of available wealth is controlled by 10% of the people. The remaining 90% of the people fight over the remaining 10%.
It is time to tweak ehe way wealth is distributed to allow the working level to retain more of their income to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, education and healthcare

Rightwinger is on board with socialism....hence the nickname leftwinger.

 

[Meister]

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

In what world does this happen, Cuyo? Certainly not on the planet Earth.
There is a percentage that pays no taxes and gets a check back from our government, Yeah, I see......NOT.

 

[Contumacious]

Like it or not, you belong to a society. As part of a society you are expected to contribute based on your ability to pay and what you draw from the society.

Bullsheet.

We are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic which was never authorized to steal from "A" in order to support "B".

.

 

[Cuyo]

Some states collect NO income taxes.
If I buy a gallon of milk and the guy behind me buys one income plays no past in it.
The same should be true of all taxes. Income should never be taxed.
You get more of what you reward. Income taxes PUNISH.

By in large, the taxes you pay go to support the infrastructure of the society in which you're able to make your money. I don't know what you do, but I'm willing to bet you depend upon things like highways, air traffic control, and a million other government programs you never think of but count on every day.

And so the Government can illegally decide to seize any amount of your personal wealth over what they deem appropriate?

No, they can do so legally. It's in the constitution of the U.S. and every State constitution.

 

[Cuyo]

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

In what world does this happen, Cuyo? Certainly not on the planet Earth.
There is a percentage that pays no taxes and gets a check back from our government, Yeah, I see......NOT.

I mean only to provide an explanation of where the "The top X percent pay Y Percent of the total tax burden!" comes from, and why it's a largely irrelevant (and mis-understood) analysis. As you can see bolded above, I already explained that the U.S. does not work that way; But that even if they did, the "X pays Y" argument would still appear unfair to the upper classes.

If anything in my analysis was in any way unclear or mathematically incorrect, please point it out to me...

And nobody gets a free ride. Everyone who earns anything pays payroll taxes (FICA), which in turn pay for about 1/3 of our budget.