Here's the problem. When 2% make 90% of the wealth then yes, it is reasonable to expect them to pay 90% of the taxes. When they pay 39% tax instead of 34% on their $400,000 plus earnings (minus deductions) then I'm not too concerned. Call me when it tops 60%, maybe I'll care more.
Oh, and my health care is NOT a for profit enterprise. Neither should be political campaigns.
Let's make sure we're talking apples to apples. I'm saying that 90% of the
income tax revenue comes from the top tier earners,
regardless of statutory or effective tax rates. Over 40% of households pay no tax at all, and many of these actually get a "refund" (Earned Income Tax Credit). This is about as progressive a tax scheme as you can imagine.
If the
statutory rate is raised, the top tier will simply find ways to maintain the
effective rate. This will require moving more
accumulated wealth to investment vehicles that do not contribute to capital formation and economic growth. When all is said and done, you will be left with
less income tax revenue, less economic growth and the satisfaction of knowing you put it to the evil rich.
The only effective way to "spread the wealth" is to promote an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs. The government can not create jobs, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 44 understood this. Look up the economic statistics.
FDR and BHO didn't / don't understand this. Look up the economic statistics.
For those afflicted with wealth envy and well-intentioned notions of Social Justice, it may seem unfair to see a great disparity of incomes between the top earners and the low end of the earnings spectrum, but that is certainly preferable to the disparity of less income at the top and no income at the bottom. Equality of economic or any other desired outcome can't be legislated any more than morality can be legislated.