The myth that the "1%" own everything

[slimreaper]

You've posted that before and I've countered it before. Just because a policy is wrong that doesn't mean getting rid of it fixes the problem. Especially when we're talking about something that supplements the economy.

Yes, getting rid of welfare will get rid of the blood suckers who want to sit at home all day and collect a check. However, what about the people that depended on that money to pay for their childs food? The people that haven't eaten in 2 days because they cared more about their child than themselves? The people that submit 50 job applications a week but never get any calls back? I assure you, there's way more of the latter group of the people, than the former.

When getting rid of something causes more harm than good, you have to provide a replacement. Not to mention the poor people will get more poor. The middle class will start to diminish even more, and the rich will get even more rich.

Are you seriously gonna sit here and complain about people who can't find a job, when I clearly just gave you a way to increase job production? If we gave these people a six month period of welfare after we implemented the new no minimum wage, then the would either find a job or starve. Don't give me the whole "they wouldn't make enough" argument... I've already explained the drop in inflation that would occur.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Of course they don't own everything, that's silly. But the majority of things that the world uses for goods and services are owned by those in the 1%.

 

[slimreaper]

Of course they don't own everything, that's silly. But the majority of things that the world uses for goods and services are owned by those in the 1%.

well they sure get a bad rap for being "greedy" for what they do own

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

well they sure get a bad rap for being "greedy" for what they do own

There's no way anyone could get to the level or status of those industries without being greedy. It's just what it takes.

Does that mean they're bad people? Imo, no.

 

[slimreaper]

There's no way anyone could get to the level or status of those industries without being greedy. It's just what it takes.

Does that mean they're bad people? Imo, no.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Multiply]

Are you seriously gonna sit here and complain about people who can't find a job, when I clearly just gave you a way to increase job production?

Say it again, I must have missed it.

If we gave these people a six month period of welfare after we implemented the new no minimum wage, then the would either find a job or starve.

Without the job production this doesn't work. You seem to want jobs to appear out of no where in 6 months. I just don't get it.

Don't give me the whole "they wouldn't make enough" argument... I've already explained the drop in inflation that would occur.

Deflation can only help so much. You're assuming every industry in the US will drop its prices because of the increased value of the dollar.

 

[slimreaper]

Say it again, I must have missed it.



Without the job production this doesn't work. You seem to want jobs to appear out of no where in 6 months. I just don't get it.



Deflation can only help so much. You're assuming every industry in the US will drop its prices because of the increased value of the dollar.

Really? Smh if we do away with the minimum wage laws, businesses will then be able to afford hiring more people. Businesses will be able to buy/sell more products increasing demand for more labor. It's this all woupd quickly reduce inflation all the while increasing competition forcing businesses to make a better product than their competitors. It's basic economics.

 

[Multiply]

Really? Smh if we do away with the minimum wage laws, businesses will then be able to afford hiring more people. Businesses will be able to buy/sell more products increasing demand for more labor. It's this all woupd quickly reduce inflation all the while increasing competition forcing businesses to make a better product than their competitors. It's basic economics.

So why was minimum wage needed? To prevent slave like conditions and cheap labor(Children and women). I understand this is 'basic' economics, but it doesn't work. It didn't work before, so what makes you think it will work now? You're speaking on theory and not on how practical this would be.

You're screwing millions of people over by getting rid of a minimum wage. You're talking 3-4 million people in the US that make minimum wage or lower. How are you going to find them all jobs in 6 months? Oh wait, you said they could starve. But oh wait, you wanted to give them a 6 month welfare period. But wait, you're against welfare too. Wait a damn minute... Slim, I knew you were a socialist at heart :lol.

 

[YowYan]

This thread doesn't make much sense. Seems like a Common Core attempt to stupify by swaying the public opinion into confusion over the legitimacy of global corruption.

 

[ZK]

Are you seriously gonna sit here and complain about people who can't find a job, when I clearly just gave you a way to increase job production? If we gave these people a six month period of welfare after we implemented the new no minimum wage, then the would either find a job or starve. Don't give me the whole "they wouldn't make enough" argument... I've already explained the drop in inflation that would occur.

Drop in inflation? Are you kidding me?
If I make less than 11,770 dollars a year deflation won't help me for shit. Sure, the Dollar will be worth more on the international market (which will weaken US exports in the short run by the way), but on the internal market you won't see much of an impact. If it's a significant turnaround you might see a drop in wages, as employers compensate, but that's about it. Of course, if a drop in wages happens there will probably be slight drops in prices for some commodities, but it will take time for the market to stabilize... and in the meantime people will buy less with their smaller paycheck, leading to less income for businesses and, inevitably, lay-offs.

You say tomato, I say potato. It's demand-side economics versus supply-side and of the two of us I'm not the one supporting what will inevitably hurt the economy in the long run. You talk about jobs as if having one magically cures everything. It doesn't. It might be different in Europe, but in the US having a job doesn't always equate financial security.

Oh, and about the 10% you talked about in your initial post? Try and research the different between the top 1% and the top 10%. It's not at all negligible.

 

[slimreaper]

Drop in inflation? Are you kidding me?
If I make less than 11,770 dollars a year deflation won't help me for shit. Sure, the Dollar will be worth more on the international market (which will weaken US exports in the short run by the way), but on the internal market you won't see much of an impact. If it's a significant turnaround you might see a drop in wages, as employers compensate, but that's about it. Of course, if a drop in wages happens there will probably be slight drops in prices for some commodities, but it will take time for the market to stabilize... and in the meantime people will buy less with their smaller paycheck, leading to less income for businesses and, inevitably, lay-offs.

You say tomato, I say potato. It's demand-side economics versus supply-side and of the two of us I'm not the one supporting what will inevitably hurt the economy in the long run. You talk about jobs as if having one magically cures everything. It doesn't. It might be different in Europe, but in the US having a job doesn't always equate financial security.

Oh, and about the 10% you talked about in your initial post? Try and research the different between the top 1% and the top 10%. It's not at all negligible.

"In the meantime, people will buy less with their paychecks". But businesses who actually save money can and will invest more in the economy. Not doing something that would help the economy because of a small lag is moronic. You can deny it all you want but the evidence on minimum wage is totally against you. Just look at seattle

 

[ZK]

"In the meantime, people will buy less with their paychecks". But businesses who actually save money can and will invest more in the economy. Not doing something that would help the economy because of a small lag is moronic. You can deny it all you want but the evidence on minimum wage is totally against you. Just look at seattle

"Invest more in the economy."
What does this mean? Will they create more jobs that pay three bucks fifty an hour? Invest the gains in a venture capital fund? Perhaps they'll increase managerial salaries or bonuses?
Or maybe they'll do like so many other business do and just blow the money on dividends for their shareholders.

And I repeat; businesses will only save money in the long term. Despite being on the receiving end of a brutal beat-down for the last thirty years the American middle-class is still enormous (if weighed down by debt). Most commodities and goods rely on these people to buy them. With lower wages across the non-managerial board - drops in money wages inevitably happens when you make people desperate for jobs - peoplewill buy less, which will force companies to do lay-offs, reduce spending by cutting wages, etc.
It's a spiral.

I've never understood this particular brand of economics. Why do you insist that having five percent unemployed living on welfare is the most terrible thing ever when you've got an expanding poverty problem? Why do you prefer all cAmericans working 50 hour weeks for very little over 95% working less hours for more?
Good labor laws haven't killed Germany's, or France's industry, or the Nordic Nations' industries. Cutting the minimum wage won't help the economy at all.

And Seattle? I'll refer to my examples of countries with more than a hundred million people doing well with a fair minimum wage. Maybe you mind the sweatshops disappearing ('cause jobs), but I sure don't.

 

[slimreaper]

"Invest more in the economy."
What does this mean? Will they create more jobs that pay three bucks fifty an hour? Invest the gains in a venture capital fund? Perhaps they'll increase managerial salaries or bonuses?
Or maybe they'll do like so many other business do and just blow the money on dividends for their shareholders.

And I repeat; businesses will only save money in the long term. Despite being on the receiving end of a brutal beat-down for the last thirty years the American middle-class is still enormous (if weighed down by debt). Most commodities and goods rely on these people to buy them. With lower wages across the non-managerial board - drops in money wages inevitably happens when you make people desperate for jobs - peoplewill buy less, which will force companies to do lay-offs, reduce spending by cutting wages, etc.
It's a spiral.

I've never understood this particular brand of economics. Why do you insist that having five percent unemployed living on welfare is the most terrible thing ever when you've got an expanding poverty problem? Why do you prefer all cAmericans working 50 hour weeks for very little over 95% working less hours for more?
Good labor laws haven't killed Germany's, or France's industry, or the Nordic Nations' industries. Cutting the minimum wage won't help the economy at all.

And Seattle? I'll refer to my examples of countries with more than a hundred million people doing well with a fair minimum wage. Maybe you mind the sweatshops disappearing ('cause jobs), but I sure don't.

keep telling yourself its working and that only "5%" are unemployed

You must be registered for see links

ignorance is bliss.

 

[Aim64C]

So why was minimum wage needed? To prevent slave like conditions and cheap labor(Children and women). I understand this is 'basic' economics, but it doesn't work. It didn't work before, so what makes you think it will work now? You're speaking on theory and not on how practical this would be.

Actually, there was never a need for minimum wage.

Minimum wage was enacted at the behest of unions in order to make it more difficult for undesirables to compete in the market.

You must be registered for see links

" The business-friendly National Center for Policy Analysis points out “the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.”

African-American economist Thomas Sowell with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution gives an uncomfortable historical primer behind minimum wage laws:

“In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.” "

Minimum wage was never about preventing slave-like conditions.

You're screwing millions of people over by getting rid of a minimum wage. You're talking 3-4 million people in the US that make minimum wage or lower. How are you going to find them all jobs in 6 months? Oh wait, you said they could starve. But oh wait, you wanted to give them a 6 month welfare period. But wait, you're against welfare too. Wait a damn minute... Slim, I knew you were a socialist at heart :lol.

4 million people is barely 1%. Of the able-bodied work force, the percentage might increase to around 4%.

Minimum wage artificially inflates the cost of hired labor. Without minimum wage, the price of labor gravitates back toward what its value is for the region. People have to work for enough pay to meet their needs. Businesses want to get the most productivity out of the least amount of expense. At some point, the two have to come to a compromise. The demanded expense of the worker is equal to or less than the expense of not having their service - and the business capitulates to the wage demand.

Many jobs are paid higher than minimum wage without any poking and prodding by the government to do so. If the argument were valid that minimum wage was necessary, then all jobs would be paid minimum wage.

Drop in inflation? Are you kidding me?
If I make less than 11,770 dollars a year deflation won't help me for shit. Sure, the Dollar will be worth more on the international market (which will weaken US exports in the short run by the way), but on the internal market you won't see much of an impact.

Deflation means a shrinking of the monetary supply. IE - for the given economic activity, a fewer number of dollars are available to represent it. This means that the internal market is impacted by a deflationary dollar.

If it's a significant turnaround you might see a drop in wages, as employers compensate, but that's about it. Of course, if a drop in wages happens there will probably be slight drops in prices for some commodities, but it will take time for the market to stabilize... and in the meantime people will buy less with their smaller paycheck, leading to less income for businesses and, inevitably, lay-offs.

Because there aren't lay-offs currently? Within your argument, it is as if once a business lays a job off, that job will never again re-appear on the market.

In actuality, a deflationary dollar would trigger a run on the banks and an implosion of the economy. If you borrow the first dollar into existence and then promise to pay that dollar back to the investor plus interest - you have to borrow the interest into existence, as well, to make the payment.

As such, virtually all of the currency in our market is built upon lent credit. Only about 3% of the current currency supply has actually been authorized by the treasury, and all of the currency authorized by the treasury is backed by bonds that were purchased with dollars that were also backed by bonds...

There are two ends for our economy. Hyper-inflation and a deflationary collapse. The only factor left to question is the timing.

You say tomato, I say potato. It's demand-side economics versus supply-side and of the two of us I'm not the one supporting what will inevitably hurt the economy in the long run. You talk about jobs as if having one magically cures everything. It doesn't. It might be different in Europe, but in the US having a job doesn't always equate financial security.

A job isn't supposed to provide you with financial security. A job is simply a contract to exchange service of some variety for payment of some amount.

Oh, and about the 10% you talked about in your initial post? Try and research the different between the top 1% and the top 10%. It's not at all negligible.

Yes, it is generally negligible.

There is nothing so unique about the "1%" that requires some kind of special attention from the government in terms of economic policies.

Generally speaking, governments harm their economies by developing economic policies in the first place.

 

[Troyg39]

I'm done dude you fail to see how all of this ties in together so you assume i'm getting off topic.

Find me some legislation that supports getting rid of these loopholes. The politicians are that 1% so they'll never do that. You are full of shit


The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes


Yet you want more?

There are is no legislation that has cut corporate loopholes yet......that is what this fuss is about in the first place. They are trying to pass legislation to do so.

You must be registered for see links

There are 8 loopholes Obama has addressed in numerous speeches and conferences that he would like to change.

You must be registered for see links

Here are other tax-exemption changes only a select few benefit from that have also been proposed.

Notice how most of these are available to corporate OWNERS. Not all law makers are owners, so no this wouldn't affect them as you tried to point out. Again, this is how they plan to gain more revenue from only the wealthiest of owners, by eliminating these loopholes and others that only benefit them. So no I'm not full of shit, you have shit for brains.

As far as your "data" you put up, again you are focusing on the wrong thing. Basically further proving you are a sheep. The percentage of tax dollars that comes from a particular group is not the same thing as each person, regardless of group, paying the same percentage of their money earned in taxes.

If the IRS gets to tax 10% of my 1 million dollars earned, they receive $100,000 dollars from me.

If the IRS gets to tax 35% of your $35,000 salary, they only receive $12,250 dollars.

The total is $112,250 in tax revenue. 89% of tax revenue came from me. You paid a measly 11%. Yet you had to give up over 1/3 of your income while I only had to give up 1/10, simply because I have more corporate tax-exemptions and ways to convert my income allowing me to protect money I've earned from being taxed and keeping it off the books.

Had you been allowed more exemptions to protect your income and only had to pay 10%, you would've only had to give up $3,500...would've made a huge difference on your $35,000. But a politician, with the same idiotic mindset that you have, decided it was more important to not "punish" the rich than to not punish you for being poor.

Selfishness and need are what drive our Economy. Favoring any group over the other, whether it be consumer or corporate, is harmful. We don't get jobs to help the company. We get jobs to take care of ourselves and family. Companies don't hire us because they want to pay us. They hire us because they need workers to increase revenue.

Sheep. It's people like you that stand as the perfect model for people who do not need to be involved in politics.

 

[slimreaper]

There are is no legislation that has cut corporate loopholes yet......that is what this fuss is about in the first place. They are trying to pass legislation to do so.

You must be registered for see links

There are 8 loopholes Obama has addressed in numerous speeches and conferences that he would like to change.

You must be registered for see links

Here are other tax-exemption changes only a select few benefit from that have also been proposed.

Notice how most of these are available to corporate OWNERS. Not all law makers are owners, so no this wouldn't affect them as you tried to point out. Again, this is how they plan to gain more revenue from only the wealthiest of owners, by eliminating these loopholes and others that only benefit them. So no I'm not full of shit, you have shit for brains.

As far as your "data" you put up, again you are focusing on the wrong thing. Basically further proving you are a sheep. The percentage of tax dollars that comes from a particular group is not the same thing as each person, regardless of group, paying the same percentage of their money earned in taxes.

If the IRS gets to tax 10% of my 1 million dollars earned, they receive $100,000 dollars from me.

If the IRS gets to tax 35% of your $35,000 salary, they only receive $12,250 dollars.

The total is $112,250 in tax revenue. 89% of tax revenue came from me. You paid a measly 11%. Yet you had to give up over 1/3 of your income while I only had to give up 1/10, simply because I have more corporate tax-exemptions and ways to convert my income allowing me to protect money I've earned from being taxed and keeping it off the books.

Had you been allowed more exemptions to protect your income and only had to pay 10%, you would've only had to give up $3,500...would've made a huge difference on your $35,000. But a politician, with the same idiotic mindset that you have, decided it was more important to not "punish" the rich than to not punish you for being poor.

Selfishness and need are what drive our Economy. Favoring any group over the other, whether it be consumer or corporate, is harmful. We don't get jobs to help the company. We get jobs to take care of ourselves and family. Companies don't hire us because they want to pay us. They hire us because they need workers to increase revenue.

Sheep. It's people like you that stand as the perfect model for people who do not need to be involved in politics.

Take from the owners, they're just gonna take it back from their employees. Biting the hand that feeds always works out well. I'm the sheep yet you can't comprehend how implementing vast government programs such as obamacare raise taxes. Yet you wanna sit here and tell me that they only care about eliminating loopholes and not raising taxes.

 

[Troyg39]

Take from the owners, they're just gonna take it back from their employees. Biting the hand that feeds always works out well. I'm the sheep yet you can't comprehend how implementing vast government programs such as obamacare raise taxes. Yet you wanna sit here and tell me that they only care about eliminating loopholes and not raising taxes.

That's not what I'm telling you. I'm addressing the specific topic your thread addressed. Obamacare is apart of a point you were trying to make, not the point you brought up in your original post, so it is irrelevant. Implementing government programs like obamacare does raise taxes. I agree, again not the original point of the thread. IMPLEMENTING a program and ELIMINATING an incentive that is already in place are not the same thing. To address the SPECIFIC topic of what is defined as income and how to bring balance to the percentage of income deemed taxable and paid, they want to take away exemptions, not add a new tax or program. Nor do they want to raise an existing tax. It is the equivalent of taking away a discount as opposed to raising the price. Only sheep have a hard time discerning the difference.

Will Corporate owners take the loss? No. Will they offset tax revenue by cutting hours, jobs, and pay? Yes. Do I personally think this the right way to go about it? No. See we don't disagree. I get your point. But as an economics and political science double major and someone who follows politics beyond that of a YouTube video, I addressed and corrected your interpretation of facts that you clearly did not understand. I'm not saying the reason they want to do this is ok. I'm making sure people actually understand the reasoning at the very least. Yes, you are a sheep for trying to pass of information that you did not fully comprehend, regardless of my agreement with your overall point. And also for being foolish enough to not see the propaganda from both parties. Calling the removal of an exemption that benefits a small group a "tax hike" and blurring the lines between income earning and net worth and the power that comes with it is also propaganda. It is misleading and causes sheep like you improperly inform the masses. At least give people the correct info so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Only sheep use the term "tax-hike" just like only sheep call obamacares tax a "penalty"

 

[slimreaper]

That's not what I'm telling you. I'm addressing the specific topic your thread addressed. Obamacare is apart of a point you were trying to make, not the point you brought up in your original post, so it is irrelevant. Implementing government programs like obamacare does raise taxes. I agree, again not the original point of the thread. IMPLEMENTING a program and ELIMINATING an incentive that is already in place are not the same thing. To address the SPECIFIC topic of what is defined as income and how to bring balance to the percentage of income deemed taxable and paid, they want to take away exemptions, not add a new tax or program. Nor do they want to raise an existing tax. It is the equivalent of taking away a discount as opposed to raising the price. Only sheep have a hard time discerning the difference.

Will Corporate owners take the loss? No. Will they offset tax revenue by cutting hours, jobs, and pay? Yes. Do I personally think this the right way to go about it? No. See we don't disagree. I get your point. But as an economics and political science double major and someone who follows politics beyond that of a YouTube video, I addressed and corrected your interpretation of facts that you clearly did not understand. I'm not saying the reason they want to do this is ok. I'm making sure people actually understand the reasoning at the very least. Yes, you are a sheep for trying to pass of information that you did not fully comprehend, regardless of my agreement with your overall point. And also for being foolish enough to not see the propaganda from both parties. Calling the removal of an exemption that benefits a small group a "tax hike" and blurring the lines between income earning and net worth and the power that comes with it is also propaganda. It is misleading and causes sheep like you improperly inform the masses. At least give people the correct info so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Only sheep use the term "tax-hike" just like only sheep call obamacares tax a "penalty"

when you speak on the rich only paying 14% in taxes as opposed to 35% for the average american, it seems like you are talking about income tax... then why do you keep trying to bring the conversation to net worth?


It's not like we tax based on net worth, and I've already conceded the title was wrong... I should have titled it myth that the 1 percent is greedy and evil


Because based on these figures they have it no better or worse based on income tax...

You must be registered for see images

They pay the same 35% as every one else its only the income tax they can avoid

Why do we tax on the basis of yearly earnings instead of on net worth if the true goal is to get the rich to pay "their fair share"?


It's funny Mr. Double major that you think that a PhD in economics and a fellow of the hoover institute is slinging propaganda... what does he stand to gain?


EDIT: a very informative video

[video=youtube;TruCIPy79w8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8[/video]

 

[Troyg39]

when you speak on the rich only paying 14% in taxes as opposed to 35% for the average american, it seems like you are talking about income tax... then why do you keep trying to bring the conversation to net worth?


It's not like we tax based on net worth, and I've already conceded the title was wrong...


Because based on these figures they have it no better or worse based on income tax...

You must be registered for see images

They pay the same 35% as every one else its only the income tax they can avoid

Why do we tax on the basis of yearly earnings instead of on net worth if the true goal is to get the rich to pay "their fair share"?

See you wouldn't have to ask these questions if you knew what you were talking about. I addressed net worth for two reasons:

1. The topic was on the 1% of owners. Your support for your opinion represents income earners. Net worth is the reflection of owners, not yearly income, because as your own video pointed out, income fluctuates, and reason being, what your video chose not to address yet you chose to tie in with your incorrect tax logic, tax-exemptions play a larger role in wealth and ownership and its retention rather than simply buying and selling a house or stock when referring to the top CORPORATE OWNERS.

2. While income tax is based on revenue earned, tax-EMXEMPTIONS aren't. The top percentage of WEALTHY Americans typically do not have ALL of their income deemed taxable. Again, I provided you with examples of exceptions they wish to eliminate, many of which are corporate tax-exemptions, in other words exemptions that have nothing to do with income, purely company structure. There are also other exemptions that allow the protection of income based on factors having nothing to do with income. I said it before, to the simple minded, and I guess to most middle to lower class workers, taxes are based on income. To everyone else, it's what's based on what is DEFINED as taxable income. The reason net worth is relavent in this? It is reflection of ownership, as the top 1% retain their corporate ownership REGARDLESS of yearly salary and benefit from exemptions based on ownership and other factors concerning how they convert their money, again not how much they make. That is why income taxes paid do not reflect what every person has made. Exemptions protect some of it. It just so happens that they protect you more when you are able to convert your money into forms of income not deemed taxable, and that is something only a few Americans are allowed to do.

I'm not bringing up net worth for the hell of it I'm bringing it up because that is what you need to be addressing if you want to make your original point valid.

*edit* I had to quote you in order to see the link you were trying to show me. Again that doesn't account for what is deemed EXEMPT from taxation. They may 35% of what is DEEMED TAXABLE INCOME, not 35% of total income earned. The difference is for poorer Americans, nearly, and most off the time ALL revenue earned is DEEMED TAXABLE. So that 35% for them comes from ALL their earnings. For someone who is so against big government, you have a bad habit of using government information that doesn't report every aspect

 

[slimreaper]

See you wouldn't have to ask these questions if you knew what you were talking about. I addressed net worth for two reasons:

1. The topic was on the 1% of owners. Your support for your opinion represents income earners. Net worth is the reflection of owners, not yearly income, because as your own video pointed out, income fluctuates, and reason being, what your video chose not to address yet you chose to tie in with your incorrect tax logic, tax-exemptions play a larger role in wealth and ownership and its retention rather than simply buying and selling a house or stock when referring to the top CORPORATE OWNERS.

2. While income tax is based on revenue earned, tax-EMXEMPTIONS aren't. The top percentage of WEALTHY Americans typically do not have ALL of their income deemed taxable. Again, I provided you with examples of exceptions they wish to eliminate, many of which are corporate tax-exemptions, in other words exemptions that have nothing to do with income, purely company structure. There are also other exemptions that allow the protection of income based on factors having nothing to do with income. I said it before, to the simple minded, and I guess to most middle to lower class workers, taxes are based on income. To everyone else, it's what's based on what is DEFINED as taxable income. The reason net worth is relavent in this? It is reflection of ownership, as the top 1% retain their corporate ownership REGARDLESS of yearly salary and benefit from exemptions based on ownership and other factors concerning how they convert their money, again not how much they make. That is why income taxes paid do not reflect what every person has made. Exemptions protect some of it. It just so happens that they protect you more when you are able to convert your money into forms of income not deemed taxable, and that is something only a few Americans are allowed to do.

I'm not bringing up net worth for the hell of it I'm bringing it up because that is what you need to be addressing if you want to make your original point valid

Why not do what Friedman suggests and put a 25% cap on the highest of taxes? As he says it wouldn't be prudent to spend money avoid taxes for such a small amount and would thus be getting more money from less tax percentages because it isn't really feasible to hide the money anymore.

That is a compromise where the people don't get hurt as backlash from the wealthy and the gov't still gets their money