how about this..
Lowest 0
Second 0
Middle 3% of all income
fourth: 6% of all income
and beyond that 17% of all income
I think income shares in a typical year look something like this:
top 1% — 21%
96-99 — 16%
81-95 — 22%
second — 19%
third — 11.5%
fourth — 7%
bottom — 3.5%
Applying a GDP of $17.7 trillion, that yields income shares of:
top 1% — $3.72 trillion
96-99 — 2.83
81-95 — 3.89
second — 3.36
third — 2.04
fourth — 1.24
bottom — .62
Under that breakdown, yer proposal would bring in less than $900 billion. Mine would generate just a bit more than $4 trillion, enough to cover the president's FY2016 proposal. In other words, a balanced budget. Worked out better than I thought.
Now these are of course rough calculations, but it does look like my rates would produce a few hundred billion more in annual revenues. I'm guessing you see them as too burdensome.
+++++
Just to make it easier to see how I got those numbers, here's my proposal again, with the revenue projections, in trillions, included:
lowest quintile 3% — .0186
second quintile 8% — .0992
Middle 13% — .2652
fourth 16% — .5376
highest 25% — .9725
highest five percent 28% — .7924
highest one percent 36% — 1.3392
TOTAL — 4.025
+++++
The super rich are mere fodder for mindless Democrat voters.
Do you mean "fodder" in the sense of something useful for only one particular purpose? I see them as useful for a number of purposes. I figure they, as a group, tend to be creative, hard-working, and very effective at generating wealth, both for themselves and for others. Since they manage to get their hands on more than twenty percent of national income, I do see them as a good source of funding for the public sector.
>>You need to evolve beyond simple rhetoric you hear on your cable news channels.
I'm guessing a lot of the liberal opinion expressed here comes from other sources.
