Obama's record budget: Tax the rich, help middle class

[wwest5829]

Followed closely by this statement from the Obama White House...

Obama says he won’t accept budget that doesn’t raise spending

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/obama-wont-accept-budget-doesnt-raise-spending/

I guess $18 TRILLION USD in debt isn't enough to break the back of the country...

When Obama took office just a little more than 6 years ago the US debt, from all time, was just over $10 trillion. Today it is $18 trillion and some wonder why some of us are "up to here" with him?

Since across the board spending cuts were instituted, I am just wondering if war spending has anything to do with that debt?

[willyumiii]

Take from people who work and give to the hood !

No. It is more like..

Permit the working Americans to live the better life they deserve and slow the rich form getting even richer off the labor of the working man.

How much richer do the rich need to get??

[willyumiii]

GW Bush started two unnecessary wars to be paid for on credit!

First time in history that has been done.

How much of the debt the GOP is whining about is from those two wars?

Two more years with this good President and the do nothing GOP congress.

Do you really thing the people will choose another do nothing congress after these fools?

Do you think another fool like Bush will ever win again?

The country, economy, and world image are much better than GW left it.

Thanks to Obama.

No thanks to the GOP who vowed to stop everything he tried to accomplish before he even took office.

We could have made even greater strides without their childish, obstructionist shenanigans.

If the law would permit it.

In two more years, I think Obama could beat the GOP again.

He would get my vote.

In the mean time, the GOP drives more nails in their coffin every day.

The party of Greed Opposing the People may very well die off in my life time.

I hope it does.

Edited February 3, 2015 by willyumiii

[sdanielmcev]

All of the US wars have been paid for on credit. It's funny when a hypocrite decries conservative tax policies, then complains about how much they have to pay. If some liberal is so hep to paying taxes, why don't they open their wallet?

[SpokaneAl]

GW Bush started two unnecessary wars to be paid for on credit!

First time in history that has been done.

How much of the debt the GOP is whining about is from those two wars?

Two more years with this good President and the do nothing GOP congress.

Do you really thing the people will choose another do nothing congress after these fools?

Do you think another fool like Bush will ever win again?

The country, economy, and world image are much better than GW left it.

Thanks to Obama.

No thanks to the GOP who vowed to stop everything he tried to accomplish before he even took office.

We could have made even greater strides without their childish, obstructionist shenanigans.

If the law would permit it.

In two more years, I think Obama could beat the GOP again.

He would get my vote.

In the mean time, the GOP drives more nails in their coffin every day.

The party of Greed Opposing the People may very well die off in my life time.

I hope it does.

Actually the Republican led house sent literally hundreds of bills to the Senate, where Senate majority leader Harry Reed refused to let any see the light of day.

[h90]

Take from people who work and give to the hood !

"Tax the rich, help middle class" means in Europe always tax the middle class. Because the rich find ways to avoid paying and from the poor you can't take something but they'll vote for you if they get some free things.

The middle class pays till they are poor.

[SpokaneAl]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

"The rich pay less taxes than anybody else??" According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 10% of households in America, with the highest incomes pay more than half of federal income taxes. It accounts for over 70% of federal taxes collected.

"Tax the rich??" How on earth did America end up with a socialistic president. Socialism and communism do not work. What we need is limited government, low taxes, and incentives to work hard.

Its a race to the bottom where the common pool of humanity aspires to slothfulness, handouts, and non industrious lives. Its equality of outcomes rather than opportunity. The answer to the morass is not further tried and failed socialist policies but a return to the core principles that enable men (and women) to succeed or fail on merit and innovation. It necessarily follows that when you bankrupt a country your primary result is the destruction of the political system. It is to this aim Obama aspires.

The race to debase the US currency is the only possible outcome of such consistently destructive economic policies. One can argue the politics of economics all day, but the fact remains: under the stewardship of this man America has quickly approached the precipice where both our currency and our politics are debased, and worthless. It is only the negation of facts that can have someone not note the danger America is in. It is in this abyss I have my greatest concerns regarding this president.

That is the Republican thinking in a nutshell. It's also the reason there will not be another Republican President for a long time. Let's not forget where that thinking got us and where we are today.

No Republican President for a long time? Republican candidates including governors beat Democrat Party candidates pretty soundly in the most recent election, so I don't think I would be so sure about that.

Edited February 3, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[beechguy]

Take from people who work and give to the hood !

No. It is more like..

Permit the working Americans to live the better life they deserve and slow the rich form getting even richer off the labor of the working man.

How much richer do the rich need to get??

I don't know, but I agree with what Gene Simmons said, "I never had a poor man offer me a job".

[h90]

GW Bush started two unnecessary wars to be paid for on credit!

First time in history that has been done.

How much of the debt the GOP is whining about is from those two wars?

Two more years with this good President and the do nothing GOP congress.

Do you really thing the people will choose another do nothing congress after these fools?

Do you think another fool like Bush will ever win again?

The country, economy, and world image are much better than GW left it.

Thanks to Obama.

No thanks to the GOP who vowed to stop everything he tried to accomplish before he even took office.

We could have made even greater strides without their childish, obstructionist shenanigans.

If the law would permit it.

In two more years, I think Obama could beat the GOP again.

He would get my vote.

In the mean time, the GOP drives more nails in their coffin every day.

The party of Greed Opposing the People may very well die off in my life time.

I hope it does.

Obama also did his fair shares on wars and war crimes..... Honestly I can't see much difference between Bush and Obama.

[Chicog]

Actually the Republican led house sent literally hundreds of bills to the Senate, where Senate majority leader Harry Reed refused to let any see the light of day.

Actually there is nothing new there.

However, the number of bills submitted by the House has dropped from 15,000+ in the 94th to a third of that now.

I would put this down to:

(1) The lazy bastards take too many holidays.

(2) Windbags like Cruz love their fillibusters.

(3) There is a lot more of adding individual bits of legislation into huge bills in an attempt to sneak it through.

More here.

[Rajhulmaheesh]

Bush is a big govt guy, jeb too, so was mccain, rominy,the old bush-all of em.

Time for a true conservative. No esoteric guy like rabio or cruz. They only talk a good game.

Scot Walker got my vote.

[F430murci]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

WTH are you talking about? Lol, this is a doozie even for you.

Very common knowledge that top 50% wage earners pay around 97 % percent of taxes.

The top 5% of all income earners pay around 57% and top 1 percent pay 35 %.

The low income individuals actually pay a negative percent.

--------

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

---------

"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757

[Chicog]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

WTH are you talking about? Lol, this is a doozie even for you.

Very common knowledge that top 50% wage earners pay around 97 % percent of taxes.

The top 5% of all income earners pay around 57% and top 1 percent pay 35 %.

The low income individuals actually pay a negative percent.

--------

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

---------

"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757

• The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 while earning 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes but earned 12 percent of income.

But of course that's only on what the government can get their hands on.

It would probably be more than enough if the thieving ratbags didn't hide vast sums of money away in tax shelters.

[Johpa]

Take from people who work and give to the hood

And that is the bottom line for most of the old southern Dixiecrats who now form the base of the Republican Party, a core of racism that can't handle any fraction of their tax money going to Black people. After WWII there was a push towards an American national healthcare system but the backlash amongst these same southerners was all about their lament having to wait in a clinic with those same Black people in attendance. These same southerners, to this day, bring you the old "States Rights" arguments, now in the guise of Rand Paul's "libertarianism" which of course hides the real origins amongst the Klan, The John Birch Society, and Lyndon LaRouche.

The country has been going downhill since the '60s when it was hands down the best place in the world to live.

Fiddling the books isn't going to reverse that slide.

Yes, back in the 1950s and early 1960s those radical socialist commies like Dwight Eisenhower taxed the wealthy at 90% and provided free college education via the GI BIll. But the decline did not begin until around 1971 when the elite began to fight back against the mild socialism of post-WWII America with the clarion call to action of Lewis Powell to unite the 1% in concerted action to reverse The New Deal and Keynesian policies of FDR which had brought about those very halcyon economic times to which our Deacon now pines for.

[Johpa]

Very common knowledge that top 50% wage earners pay around 97 % percent of taxes.

The top 5% of all income earners pay around 57% and top 1 percent pay 35 %.

The low income individuals actually pay a negative percent.

Your only talking about income taxes and not property taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes etc. If someone's income is so modest that they must rely upon the government for food and healthcare, just how much would you want to tax their incomes? And if you want to know, all those deductions that allow low income earners to receive a tax refund are also used by the 1% to lower their own tax liabilities. Bottom line is that this tired argument of FOX News is simply nonsense.

[chuckd]

Only page 2 and the progressive liberals are already shouting "racism" at the Republicans.

That didn't take long.

[Johpa]

Only page 2 and the progressive liberals are already shouting "racism" at the Republicans.

That didn't take long.

According to the board statistics who took about 2 hours from the time of the OP for someone to talk about tax dollars going to the "hood" and then it took 13 hours more for me to call them out.

[F430murci]

Very common knowledge that top 50% wage earners pay around 97 % percent of taxes.

The top 5% of all income earners pay around 57% and top 1 percent pay 35 %.

The low income individuals actually pay a negative percent.

Your only talking about income taxes and not property taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes etc. If someone's income is so modest that they must rely upon the government for food and healthcare, just how much would you want to tax their incomes? And if you want to know, all those deductions that allow low income earners to receive a tax refund are also used by the 1% to lower their own tax liabilities. Bottom line is that this tired argument of FOX News is simply nonsense.

Haha, not much brighter than the other guy.

Most deductions are lost ot phased out when you make decent money. The 1 % is no where close to getting to deduct what low wage earners can deduct. I can name about 10 categories I cannot get.

People with more expensive property pay more in property tax. Renters pay zero.

This is also a state tax not federal which is topic of OP.

Sun tax and sales tax all state taxes. Obviously, someone buying more and very expensive stuff pays more is sales tax. If you don't have money to buy food, don't buy smokes and beer and then no sin tax to worry about.

No fuel tax when you on da bus and a large chunk of fuel tax is state.

[SpokaneAl]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

WTH are you talking about? Lol, this is a doozie even for you.

Very common knowledge that top 50% wage earners pay around 97 % percent of taxes.

The top 5% of all income earners pay around 57% and top 1 percent pay 35 %.

The low income individuals actually pay a negative percent.

--------

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

---------

"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757

• The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 while earning 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes but earned 12 percent of income.

But of course that's only on what the government can get their hands on.

It would probably be more than enough if the thieving ratbags didn't hide vast sums of money away in tax shelters.

Now that the argument that the wealthier pay no taxes has been proven false via data, you change to a "yeah but" unprovable accusation.

As so often occurs here on Thai Visa, the discussions devolve into a waste of time and energy.

Edited February 3, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[Johpa]

Most deductions are lost or phased out when you make decent money. The 1 % is no where close to getting to deduct what low wage earners can deduct. I can name about 10 categories I cannot get.

People with more expensive property pay more in property tax. Renters pay zero.

Mercy, mercy, mercy. Without getting into your personal ad hominem accusations, low wage earners rarely have any deductions that go beyond the standard deductions given to everyone. It took me several years on TurboTax to realize that at my own median income, the itemized deductions never changed my taxes because even with my mortgage payments deductions it never added up to more than my standard deduction. And that deduction applies to everyone. The only deduction that directly impacted my taxes were my kid's college expenses but yes, the American Opportunity Tax Credit does begin to phase out at around $160k. But what the typical 1% is able to deduct for mortgage alone is far more than any standard deduction of somebody making near median wage or below. And please, renters pay property taxes through their rent as that cost will always be passed on to the renter. And as many have pointed out, property taxes and the other taxes add up to a higher percentage of income than do the the higher property taxes on waterfront estates of the 1%. But again, this is all somewhat irrelevant to the broader question as to why you would want to tax an income that is insufficient to survive without food stamps or public health care?

As far as I am concerned, the best thing would be to abolish the Federal income tax for wage income below median income; increase the tax on income above twice median income with taxes scaling up to the 90% rate for the top .5% as they did in the 1950s; increase capital gains tax on unearned income; and add a small transaction tax on stock purchases. All the above to counter the lost revenue from removing the income tax on lower wage earners. The added growth benefits to the economy would more than make up for any negative impacts from increased taxes on the wealthy because the economy only grows, jobs are created, when there is an increase in aggregate demand for goods and services. The idea that lowering taxes on the wealthy is how to grow the economy and create jobs is just patently absurd. That is just the idea behind the long discredited "voodoo" economics of Ronald Reagan and the supply-siders.

[F430murci]

Most deductions are lost or phased out when you make decent money. The 1 % is no where close to getting to deduct what low wage earners can deduct. I can name about 10 categories I cannot get.

People with more expensive property pay more in property tax. Renters pay zero.

Mercy, mercy, mercy. Without getting into your personal ad hominem accusations, low wage earners rarely have any deductions that go beyond the standard deductions given to everyone. It took me several years on TurboTax to realize that at my own median income, the itemized deductions never changed my taxes because even with my mortgage payments deductions it never added up to more than my standard deduction. And that deduction applies to everyone. The only deduction that directly impacted my taxes were my kid's college expenses but yes, the American Opportunity Tax Credit does begin to phase out at around $160k. But what the typical 1% is able to deduct for mortgage alone is far more than any standard deduction of somebody making near median wage or below. And please, renters pay property taxes through their rent as that cost will always be passed on to the renter. And as many have pointed out, property taxes and the other taxes add up to a higher percentage of income than do the the higher property taxes on waterfront estates of the 1%. But again, this is all somewhat irrelevant to the broader question as to why you would want to tax an income that is insufficient to survive without food stamps or public health care?

As far as I am concerned, the best thing would be to abolish the Federal income tax for wage income below median income; increase the tax on income above twice median income with taxes scaling up to the 90% rate for the top .5% as they did in the 1950s; increase capital gains tax on unearned income; and add a small transaction tax on stock purchases. All the above to counter the lost revenue from removing the income tax on lower wage earners. The added growth benefits to the economy would more than make up for any negative impacts from increased taxes on the wealthy because the economy only grows, jobs are created, when there is an increase in aggregate demand for goods and services. The idea that lowering taxes on the wealthy is how to grow the economy and create jobs is just patently absurd. That is just the idea behind the long discredited "voodoo" economics of Ronald Reagan and the supply-siders.

High income earners lose student loan interest, child care, child credit, ability to deduct any medical or legal expenses, cannot deduct mortgage insurance, standards get phased, dependent exmeptions get phased, out of pocket employment expenses, property taxes get phased, mortgage payments get phased, charitable contributions get phased, uninsured losses are lost.

In Florida, we have no tax on groceries so poor don't get hit with that tax. Most Florida revenue comes from tax in real estate transactions, property tax and business tax.

Many states rely an income tax for state revenues. Obviously, wealthy on a flat rate pays more $$$ than a poor individual.

I pay more taxes than perhaps 100 low income earners even when you add in all of the state, federal and local taxes. Should I? Yes, I should. It' sucks how much I pay, especially when I get less benefit from taxes than low income households. Nevertheless, someone has to pay.

That said, I just don't want to hear this ridiculous bs that high income earners are not carry the tax load and paying most off the taxes.

[impulse]

People with more expensive property pay more in property tax. Renters pay zero.

Let's nip this one in the bud.

Of course property taxes are passed on to renters. Landlords include it in the rent they charge. Along with insurance, and interest payments and all the other things they pay.

The only thing that renters don't get...is equity.

[F430murci]

People with more expensive property pay more in property tax. Renters pay zero.

Let's nip this one in the bud.

Of course property taxes are passed on to renters. Landlords include it in the rent they charge. Along with insurance, and interest payments and all the other things they pay.

The only thing that renters don't get...is equity.

Rent is driven by market value in an area. I own properties and have rented them at a loss and at a substantial profit depending upon market value. If a 3 bedroom, 2 bath condo in a large resort is renting for $ 2,500 a month, I charge $2,500 a month regardless of whether I owe $ 2,800 or if it is paid completely off.

Renters don't pay property taxes. They pay rent and they usually are not renting out the valuable properties that generate the bulk of property taxes.

[mopar71]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

Contrary to actual data, I suppose some will continue to flog that old horse.

All people have to do is go to irs.gov and look at the data themselves, all in Excel format. However that would require thinking for themselves instead of getting wisdom from a bumper sticker attached stuck on the back of a Prius.

You mean like this . . .

The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011

That is exactly what I meant, even down to the year. If one looks deeper, I believe that while the Top 1 Percent pays 35 percent of all (Individual) Income Taxes, they account for only about 11% of the (Individual) Income.

I have often asked, but NEVER received a reply to the question, if someone accounts for 11% of the income, what percentage of taxes would be considered paying their fair share?. I'm expecting someone here to answer, "40%!"

[puck2]

You put the word "Obama" in the title of any new post and the tin foil hat, nutters go out of their minds.

If you're an American making less than $250k and voting republican, you're voting against your own self interest. Obama's approval rating is on a dramatic rise. Obamacare has insured 12 million people for less money than originally thought. He's ended two wars, nailed Osama, saved the economy. The stock market is at record levels and the American dollar is stronger than its ever been. This despite every effort by Republicans to sabotage Obama's Presidency at every turn. He's accomplished amazing things when you take that into consideration.

<....>

I know how hard it must be for the lemmings, but turn off Fox News and take a breath of fresh air. Try and get the hate and fear under control. Reading these posts, I'm really worried you guys.

+1

You express what I've thought already for many years: why does such a big number of people vote for the Reps, although most of them don't belong to the rich class. Answer to myself

• lobby victims (the US have first class psychologists). It's hard to understand why the majority of the US voters supported a party and a (terror) persident for a second period who started and fabricated a war and caused so much mess in the ME.

• majority with no interest in politics, low education (brain) - look at Pinot's second paragraph.

• propaganda on TV (Fox) and other medias.

• money. Remember, when the big money noticed during Obamas first election campain that he would win the Prez-Job the money-chameleons changed their attitude to save their influence on politics, i.e. tax reductions, introduced .... na, by the Reps. Suddenly the Obama Party received the big election money. Not for supporting his ideas, but for securing their influence on some "special" politics.

It seems some Rep-TV members have a fading memory.

1. Until now, Obama is suffering from the toxic legacy of his predecessor's policy, including 2 costly wars with their consequences and not raising taxes of the rich.

2. Having the majority in the House of Rep. the old party extremely obstructed all resonable politics of O. They didn't support him to raise taxes from the rich.

Imagine, if you would earn 12 million dollars a year does it kill or make you a poor man/woman if you should pay a few percents more than before? No social feeling. Only me, me, me .... .

How can the US reduce their total budget deficit if not being able of slashing expenses (i.e. military) or taxing the rich?

Edited February 4, 2015 by puck2

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

as long as the rich pay less taxes than anybody else, useless

"The rich pay less taxes than anybody else??" According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 10% of households in America, with the highest incomes pay more than half of federal income taxes. It accounts for over 70% of federal taxes collected.

"Tax the rich??" How on earth did America end up with a socialistic president. Socialism and communism do not work. What we need is limited government, low taxes, and incentives to work hard.

Limited government? so what are you suggesting? How about privatizing the military? Police? schools? Fire department etc etc?

USA is just as socialist as any country in the world minus the healthcare. I can't believe this "smart educated country" falls for the stupid socialist lies they are told by FOX news and your corrupt politicians.

Everything that is good in America is ran by the government (see above). Everything that is private is screwed up ie, your healthcare prior to Obama care. You are the ONLY developed country in the world that does not have universal healthcare (I will not use the word social because of the ridiculous stigma Americans put on it).

All you tea baggers say you want limited gov until you have some national disaster then you cry for more government intervention. You want less taxes but still want to pump money into your military. The stupidity of this just baffles me.

[JAG]

You put the word "Obama" in the title of any new post and the tin foil hat, nutters go out of their minds.

If you're an American making less than $250k and voting republican, you're voting against your own self interest. Obama's approval rating is on a dramatic rise. Obamacare has insured 12 million people for less money than originally thought. He's ended two wars, nailed Osama, saved the economy. The stock market is at record levels and the American dollar is stronger than its ever been. This despite every effort by Republicans to sabotage Obama's Presidency at every turn. He's accomplished amazing things when you take that into consideration.

Of all the clowns now running for the Republican nomination (with Scott Walker leading Iowa ) there isn't a creative policy on anything except lowering taxes on the rich. That's it, lower taxes on the rich. Possibly start a war with the terrorist de jour. Maybe build a fence to keep out the terrorist. Whatever weirdness Fox tells you to be afraid of this week.

I know how hard it must be for the lemmings, but turn off Fox News and take a breath of fresh air. Try and get the hate and fear under control. Reading these posts, I'm really worried you guys.

Yes yes yes, we know all that, but he is still a black man with an "uppity" wife.

And that is why the people making the running in US politics will NEVER accept anything he proposes.

[chuckd]

Actually he is half white, but let's not worry about the truth.

His wife? That's another story.

[SpokaneAl]

You put the word "Obama" in the title of any new post and the tin foil hat, nutters go out of their minds.

If you're an American making less than $250k and voting republican, you're voting against your own self interest. Obama's approval rating is on a dramatic rise. Obamacare has insured 12 million people for less money than originally thought. He's ended two wars, nailed Osama, saved the economy. The stock market is at record levels and the American dollar is stronger than its ever been. This despite every effort by Republicans to sabotage Obama's Presidency at every turn. He's accomplished amazing things when you take that into consideration.

Of all the clowns now running for the Republican nomination (with Scott Walker leading Iowa ) there isn't a creative policy on anything except lowering taxes on the rich. That's it, lower taxes on the rich. Possibly start a war with the terrorist de jour. Maybe build a fence to keep out the terrorist. Whatever weirdness Fox tells you to be afraid of this week.

I know how hard it must be for the lemmings, but turn off Fox News and take a breath of fresh air. Try and get the hate and fear under control. Reading these posts, I'm really worried you guys.

Yes yes yes, we know all that, but he is still a black man with an "uppity" wife.

And that is why the people making the running in US politics will NEVER accept anything he proposes.

Now that is one simplistic conclusion that lumps millions of people into a single bucket.

Is it not possible that thinking, involved, concerned Americans, of which I like to believe I am one, cannot disagree with the President, who also happens to represent the liberal end of the Democrat Party, without the old saw of racist being trudged out?

I got a lump in my throat with pride in how far the US had come when I watched him take the oath of office. Does that mean I voted for him and/or support his ideas which seem to be based on increased government solutions via increasing the size of the gov't and spending? No, it does not.

I am hoping that a reasonable Republican candidate emerges from the mix. I believe there are some good ones. Time will tell if that happens.

Edited February 4, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[Johpa]

Renters don't pay property taxes. They pay rent and they usually are not renting out the valuable properties that generate the bulk of property taxes.

Ridiculous! Rents are one of the primary topics when reading any of the classic works on economics. There may be, at a micro-economic level, the rare event where rents do not cover costs, but at the larger macroeconomic level, rents always reflect the value of the property and in fact, when speaking of rentals, the potential rents will be the determining factor as to valuing the property for both tax purposes and for resale purposes: if your rents drop so too does the value of your property.

That is exactly what I meant, even down to the year. If one looks deeper, I believe that while the Top 1 Percent pays 35 percent of all (Individual) Income Taxes, they account for only about 11% of the (Individual) Income.

I have often asked, but NEVER received a reply to the question, if someone accounts for 11% of the income, what percentage of taxes would be considered paying their fair share?. I'm expecting someone here to answer, "40%!"

Your primary erroneous assumption is that income is distributed in a some sort of classic bell-shaped normal distribution curve or a straight line 45° curve when, technically, it is a Lorenz curve. That is also the fallacy behind those who would advocate for a flat tax. The bell curve or straight line curve is not the case. Given the large numbers of people with very modest incomes that don't leave the wage earner with enough to support themselves, and whom I would not expect to pay any income tax, we would expect the relatively small number of very high wage earners to pay the bulk of the income taxes, and your 40% does not seem that high to me. If you have an income tax in an economy with a highly unequal distribution of income, then you must either accept that a small percentage of high income earners will have to pay a disproportionately high percentage of total income tax revenue, or you must restructure the economy to lower income in quality.