I understand what you're saying.
Honestly I do.
But the reality of the situation is very simple. The top 10% pay 60%...the top 25% pay 84% etc...the math was there.
Saying this isn't the case is misrepresenting reality. Thats the way the current system works. This is not a question of whether this is good or bad. It just is.
And...in order to make an impact to the economy, >real< money has to shift. 100 million isn't going to do anything to move a ten trillion dollar economy.
And so, any >breaks< given on income taxes that will be enough to have any impact are >necessarily< going to favor the richest xxx% of the population....simply because they are the ones who are paying. Income taxes changes cannot benefit the poor...the bottom 40% don't even pay. How can you reduce >their< burden any more.
And while the analogy shows the top guy just leaving the table, which isn't a real option at this point, the effect of hammering them over and over will make them shelter income, or not bother to earn it at all. Another example of this extreme are the "dissappearing" businessmen in Atlas Shrugged. Sooner or later it isn't worth it any longer...and the effect of these men quitting impact far more people than just themselves.
England and several other European countries see this all of the time. Prize athletes, F1 drivers, entertainers...the super wealthy...[link|http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1997/swimsuit/karen/monaco/monaco.html|move to Monaco] to avoid taxes. If it gets much worse here...you might start seeing the same thing...and in some cases...it probably already does.
