Hi Phantom
I have recovered from the shock and I would like to do some prodding,
There is a difference between wealth and income, I had believed that the richest personal income was dividends and the like.
Most wealthy earn the vast majority of their increase in wealth through Capital Gains, which is taxed at a flat rate of 15-20% (forget what it is right now). None of that growth is subject to employment taxes (7.75% for the income earner, 7.75% employers portion / self employed portion). So, right off the bat the MAXIMUM tax the wealthy pay constitutes ONLY the amount that the poorest self-employed person pays BEFORE income tax. Too, "Employment Taxes" are capped (it was the first $70k, don't know today). Oh, and because the LEGAL DEFINITION of "income" is "that which is subject to income tax," if you experience a $1 billion dollar gain in the value of your stocks it will NEVER be reported on the news as "income," nor included in statistics on "income." It will be taxed at a flat 15% (if at all, there are more tricks) ONLY when you sell the stock.
The net result is that EVEN if a wealthy person reports every dime of increase in their net worth, their sum tax rate is less than that of a person making $50k.
Tim Noah's article (I think I have attached it) tells a different story - the highest income bands are job income (CEO's, hedge funds....)
Such people don't earn only for one or two years of their lives;
they "earn" for decades
Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Most millionaires accumulate a few paltry millions by hard work saved over many years, and generally accumulate most of that in the last few working years. CEOs making the kind of money you describe number about the same as asshat Hollywood entertainers, who contribute bupkis to real wealth in the country (they create no durable goods & services). Stop watching the news, read the actual numbers.
Given the positive feedback why do you say
"and within two generations whatever they did save is squandered"
Read, "The Millionaire Next Door." Couple of bucks used from Amazon. Two researchers decided to do a study on "Who are the Millionaires?" and discovered that everything they assumed to be true about the "wealthy" was pretty much bogus.
Once a family has substantial funds most families lock them away so even the G W Bush's of this world can't squander it.
What do you consider "substantial?" How many standard deviations from the median makes a "rich person evil?" The dirty little secret of Liberalism is that it is really a tiny percentage of people in our society that lead, persuade, bully, and otherwise convince the productive 50% of our society to do anything useful at all - and absent a sufficient reward to make them feel superior to the ants doing the work, they will earn just enough to retire and play tennis. Level the playing field in the way proposed by Marx, and everyone suffers from a stagnated economy. Me? I sure as hell won't work my ass off if all I can get for it is enough to stay home and watch tv.
The top 1% in America "earn" 24% of the total earnings (the rich)
LOL - statistics can say just about anything you want them to. The bottom 50% of Americans earn nothing. That doesn't mean that they have no disposable income - over a third of that population are kids. They love to talk about the "top 1%." Why? Because those are the most productive, excluding the top 0.01% - 0.1% who hold 95% of the accumulated wealth of that group. As in any war, you should probably positively identify the enemy before you shoot. The Liberals aim at the Productive, not those who are the Royalty (such as George Soros) who pull strings without actually producing anything of value. By persuading enough voters that the top 1-2% of "income earners" are the enemy, what they really are doing is enlisting an army of zombies to legitimize stealing the just reward of the productive to keep those productive from attaining equal stature with the incumbent royalty - all in the name of "equality." It is slavery disguised as freedom - just like 1984 by George Orwell portended.
The reality is that a system that taxes everyone on consumption a modest amount and then caps wealth to eliminate the "positive feedback" flaw in capatalism MIGHT be a better system, but will never be allowed by the incumbent aristocracy short of a revolution - or short of Liberals waking up and realizing how they've been duped for over 100 years.
The top 0.1% in America "earn" 7.7% of the total earnings (the stinking rich)
Yep - their reported "income" (that money received which is subject to the income tax, the legal definition of "income") is neither reflective of their relative wealth nor the actual money they accumulated in a year. Push back the veil, understand what the numbers are really saying, before you believe the slant the media puts on things. Is George Soros more productive than a millionaire? Not on your life - and quite the opposite, if you believe even a tiny portion of what Glen Beck and his team have reported based on Soros' own words. Such "stinking rich" are actively among the most destructive forces in our world.
If you were talking wealth - the numbers get even more extreme!
Attempting to level this completely is futile,
but the tax system used to try to make it less extreme - remember 90% tax bands?
You, and others, had already lost the argument when you accepted any validity to the income tax (and thus the way they report "income" and "wealth"). You are stuck arguing about "how much," rather than "is this system even valid?"
Some of the rich do remember that if the levels get too extreme the blazing torches and guillotines come out, these guys would support some leveling just out of self defense
In 1954 when marginal rates were about 90%, no one paid those rates. Until you understand that, from the point of view of the ultra-rich, the income tax is simply a charade, you will forever be fooled into believing that those promoting higher rates are the friends of the working man.
Try this exercise. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all politicians lie. Which politician will pretend to be your friend?
Answer: The one with his knife furthest up your sunshine...