> the wealthy have a higher tax burden because they have most of the money Well duh. This isn't really an argument. This is one of those "facts" that is so obv

> the wealthy have a higher tax burden because they have most of the money Well duh. This isn't really an argument. This is one of those "facts" that is so obvious, yet people think it should be somehow shocking, like "90% percent of accidents happen 5 miles from the home", well no shit, you have to drive in the 5 mile radius to go anywhere, or to get back home. > A family that makes $200,408 gross taxed at 18.38% is still left with $163,573. A family making $12,439 @ 9.78% only has $11,223 where every dollar counts in terms of trying to keep a roof overhead and bellies full. And...what is your point? This is perfectly reasonable. Look generally speaking (of course there are outliers and edge cases), but the more money you make the more responsibility you have. A line cook doesn't have as much responsibly as a franchise manager, a franchisee manager doesn't have much responsibility as corporate district manager, etc. Why would anyone strive to have jobs with more responsibility, if you are just going to tax them to oblivion where a senior VP now takes home the same as line cook? Having the senior VIP take home much more money, is reasonable and fair. Ideally taxing income is generally immoral, IMO. A much fairer system would be to ditch income tax entirely and just have a VAT. But somehow people are deluded into thinking VAT is "regressive", which its not.