> It is objective reality that the lifestyles of the bottom 60% are subsidized by the top 40% of tax payers. You could turn the tables and say that the lower a

> It is objective reality that the lifestyles of the bottom 60% are subsidized by the top 40% of tax payers. You could turn the tables and say that the lower and middle classes subsidize employment terms that are favorable to the wealthy. To tax the top 40% because some subset of the top 40% can't pay the bottom 60% a living wage is just a way for the wealthy to extract further wealth from the middle class. I'd say that both perspectives are valid ways to look at it, and won't pretend that either of them is "objective reality", but with a growing wealth gap it seems obvious to me who benefits most from this system.