The fact that you claim their income is underreported does not alter the percentage of total federal taxes they pay.

I don't know the percent of wealth, I assume it is large. That does not negate the fact that they are paying the vast bulk of taxes. My point is I reject the demonizing and class warfare that is so common today. The rich can live well anywhere, they need us less than we need them.

From TaxFoundation.org

In 2000, tax returns with an adjusted gross income over $200,000 earned 26.7 percent of all income, and they paid 47.3 percent of all income taxes. That’s a tax-to-income share ratio of 1.79. Four years later in 2004, their share of income had fallen from 26.7 to 25.5 percent, but their share of taxes had risen to 50.0 percent. That brought the ratio up from 1.79 to 1.96 in 2004.

The biggest winners were in the $25,000-to-$30,000 range. If the Bush tax cuts are the determining factor, then the logical conclusion is that the new 10-percent bracket and the doubled child credit caused dramatic reductions in tax payment. As a result, the ratio of tax share to income share was cut in half.

Two other income groups stand out. People in the $75,000-to-$100,000 group benefited more than the group below earning between $50,000 and $75,000. Most likely, they earned enough to benefit from elimination of the marriage penalty and from cutting the 28-percent rate to 25 percent, but they didn’t make so much that they lost the benefit of the doubled child credit or the new 10-percent bracket. Their share of the nation’s income grew substantially, and their tax share grew by an infinitesimal amount.

People making between $200,000 and $500,000 saw their tax share increase even more than the groups above them. That is the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which takes away many of the Bush tax cuts for people in this range. Above $500,000 tax filers don’t “fall into” the AMT because they already owe more under the regular income tax code.

Conclusion
Overall, the federal income tax became markedly more progressive between 2000 and 2004. Without knowing exactly how much the Bush tax cuts caused this growing progressivity, one can tentatively conclude that in the mix of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, the ones geared to people making less than $100,000 turned out to be more powerful relative to those geared to help people making more than $100,000.

From NCPA,
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook4.html

Who is rich? Many people would consider the top 10 percent or top 25 percent of taxpayers to be rich. The former included all taxpayers with incomes above $69,000, the latter those with incomes above $43,000. Since these income figures are per return, they include two-earner couples.

Thus a single person earning $22,000 would probably be considered poor -- being in the lower 50 percent of taxpayers. But a married couple each making $22,000 would be considered rich, because they would be in the top 25 percent of taxpayers.

Remember that the next time Obama says he wants to tax the rich.

You proposed no solutions. You proposed letting the Greedy Oligarchy continue to rip off the country, and you propose stopping all R&D on alternative energy solutions. I have seen enough off your trolling ilk, posting the same denials of global warming, and singing the praises of trickle down nonsense, not to be taken in by you.

It's nice they have internet connectivity at the asylum. Maybe tomorrow you can make something fun out of macaroni in craft class. Have a good night, and don't worry about those aliens stealing your thoughts, your tinfoil hat will protect you.

"In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks."

"New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[18] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

"Although Hoover's reputation was at its nadir, circumstances would now begin to develop that would help rehabilitate his name and restore him to a position of prominence in the life of the nation. Roosevelt overreached on his Supreme Court packing plan, and a recession in 1937 and 1938 tarnished his image of invincibility."

Some of Hoover's actions exacerbated the depression, but increasing taxes on the rich 2 1/2 times should fall under your umbrella of sticking it to the fat cats. Unfortunately it didn't work.

I have difficulty arguing with Bulldog that optimal taxation exists somewhere between 0% and 100% - quite a number of conservatives such as Grover Nyquist see only the lower number as the goal, and from my end I think taxes on the lower end does encourage a faster, more dynamic economy, and that we can manage some benefits like universal health care without aiming for a 70% taxation economy.

But I still don't see the need for all the vitriol.

I said that if Clinton raised taxes, it would hurt the economy, and it did. The economy had already recovered from the 91 slump before he took office,as a check of GDP from that era will show.

Here is some info from this site:
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm

Nothing illustrates the negative effect of tax increases as well as comparing economic growth following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and the tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Both the tax cuts and the tax increases had profound effects on the subsequent economic recoveries, which began in 1982 and 1991, respectively. To assess the magnitude of such effects, Figure 1 compares the cumulative percentage growth in real GDP from the low-point of each recession. Comparing the cumulative real GDP growth experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, it is evident that Reagan's tax cuts led to a strong, healthy recovery, with GDP growing 29 percent in just 7 years.[2] Over the same time span following the Bush/Clinton tax increases, real GDP is expected to increase only 21 percent.[3] In fact, the economy after Reagan's tax cuts grew more in 5 years than the Bush/Clinton recovery will in 7 years. In other words, the burden of tax increases on the economy has "cost" the American economy 2 years of growth.

Click here to see Figure 1..

To put the consequences of slow growth in perspective, consider what would have happened had the current recovery matched the Reagan recovery. Real GDP is expected to be $7.2 trillion in 1998. If the economic expansion that began in 1991 were to match the growth under Reagan, real GDP would be $500 billion higher in 1998 and $2.8 trillion higher over 1992-98. Real GDP "lost" to slow growth would amount to over $7,300 per American family of four in 1998.

Job Creation Falters Under Bush/Clinton Tax Increases

The effects of higher taxes and increased government regulation have been painfully felt by working Americans, particularly those who have not been able to find jobs. Just one year after emerging from the recession, employment grew 3.5 percent under Reagan. [4] At the same point in the current recovery, employment actually fell 0.2 percent. Under the Bush/Clinton recovery, 7.5 million jobs have been created in the past four years (Figure 2). While this may seem substantial, it pales in comparison to the 11.5 million jobs created in the first four years of the Reagan recovery.

Click here to see Figure 2..

The 2 year growth gap in real GDP is reflected in the figures for job creation. Two years of the Reagan recovery nearly match four full years of job growth under Bush/Clinton. During the first four years of the Reagan recovery, there were an average of 240,000 jobs created each month. In the four year period following the 1990-91 recession, the average monthly job growth was just 156,000. In other words, for every two jobs created between 1992-95, three jobs were created under Reagan between 1983-86.