Fair or unfair, what it IS is logical ... given the entire nature of the graduated income tax boondoggle in the first place, just who did you expect would be paying the bulk of the tax burden ??? IF one assumes (as I do not) that there is anything "fair" about the graduated income tax in the first place, who do you think SHOULD be paying the lion's share of the tax ?? ... SHOULD those with low incomes be more heavily taxed? ... SHOULD those who are lucky and/or good enough to make a six figure income be even MORE disproportionately penalized for their luck/ability? ... would you not agree there are more men than women whose income is in the $50k - $100k range ? ... or do women whose income is in that range somehow manage to pay a lower rate of tax? ... if so, how?
Hey, let's face it ... 75 years ago, a tax on incomes was still not constitutionally permitted ... then, during the Great Depression, FDR (hero of the masses) pushed the idea of an income tax onto the public and got the ammendment passed which would allow it ... the bill of goods that was sold to the voters was that it would be a "graduated" tax which would not fall on the shoulders of the average working man, but would stick it to the "big corporations" and to the "rich" ... well, the voters couldn't see what inflation would bring and bought the plan ... a tax falling on SOMEone else always sounds better than one falling on ones own self ... and who WERE the rich??? with the average guy making less than $5k, an income of $25k looked huge ... an income of $50k surely constituted riches ...
So, just wait 'til inflation kicks in for a little longer ... 'til the average guy is making $75k and those with a little luck, initiative and ability who are in that range now have income that've risen to $150-200k ... given the confiscatory nature of the graduated income tax, you'll have a hell of a lot more to complain about then than you do now, because in terms of the original model, you won't just be unimaginably rich, you'll be FILTHY rich ...
