As to the 10% paying the 80, well yes technically I was wrong there, my idea was right but number were not. one thing that I did notice is that the bottom 50% only pay like 5%. Here is something I found that seemed interesting. check it out.
Quote:
LOOKING AT HISTORY'S LESSONS
There is a distinct pattern throughout U.S. history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. This evidence demonstrates that:
Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s: Revenues from personal income taxes increased substantially during the 1920s despite a reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1.164 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation).
The Kennedy tax cuts (1960s): Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
The Reagan tax cuts (1980s): Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, but the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically--by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Fact #1: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of income earners pays more than 30 percent of the total income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay more than 60 percent; and the top 25 percent pay more than 80 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the total income tax burden.
|
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1253es.cfm