I'll hang up and wait for the Fox/Limbaugh spin.

==============================

percentile. One need only talk to a cpa or financial advisor to confirm that. You specifically used the word 'burden'. The problem with using abstractions, as opposed to specific language, is interpretation. Let's use an extreme example. Suppose everyone but the 1% were taxed at a flat rate of 25%. So someone making $20,000 would owe a tax of $5,000. Suppose the 1% were taxed at 24%. So someone making $1,000,000 would we a tax of $240,000. This would be described as horribly unfair, that the 1%er is not paying his "fair share". What's of course ignored is that this doesn't even remotely describe reality. The guy making $20k pays almost no income tax. He does pay payroll tax. The guy making $1M pays several hundred thousand in income tax alone. He also pays payroll tax (no limit on Medicare; SS is limited, but rising). This too is nevertheless described as horribly unfair. Or, it's described as you describe it--the 1%er has the smaller tax burden!

Second, let's look at counter-examples to "trickle down", i.e. high tax rates. Illinois, Chicago in particular, is a good example. Both are fiscal nightmares. Some of the worst in the nation. One would have to be a fool to more or set up business there. (Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see either or both effect an "exit tax" to try to squeeze as much from possible as those getting the hell out. They would of course also be labeled with derogatory name, like 'deserters'. That's part of the playbook.) Neither entity knows what to do other than to keep raising taxes. Which brings up the other example--Europe. It continues to have twice the unemployment rate as the U.S. According to anti-"trickle down" logic, this simply has to be a paradox. How could there be high unemployment when the area employs and enjoys such wonderfully high tax rates? There should be plenty of money to employ everyone in some government job or another.

Third, let's look at what tax credits and tax rates do. While I'm not advocating them, tax credits incentivize businesses to move into jurisdictions. Right or wrong, that's the effect. Now look at tax rates. In specific, let's look at the cool device many liberals carry--an iPhone. One major reason it's as cheap as it is is that it's produced in China. Why would Apple ever want to set up shop in China where it can employ cheap labor and avoid environmental and work laws? One can rail against such behavior (though I don't think I've ever heard of any liberal protesting such actions by giving up his smartphone), but one cannot deny what the company is doing. Further, what happens to all of those foreign profits? Apple is sitting on about $200B in cash right now that is held in foreign jurisdictions. It won't get taxed until it repatriates the money to the U.S., so it's looking for ways not to do so. For example, borrowing money to finance dividends and stock buybacks. (The interest it pays likely reduces its U.S. tax bill.) Right or wrong, that's the effect.

Bottom line is that people respond to incentives and punishments. People are absolutely willing to pay some amount of tax, and different cultures differ in how much they're willing to pay. We're willing to pay about 20%. The French are willing to pay about 50%. You can push the components of that 20% in virtually any direction, and those getting punished will very likely look for ways to reduce their tax burden. Entire industries have sprung up proving this. The estate tax brings in a pittance to the federal government. Nevertheless, an entire cottage industry of estate planning exists because of it. Why? Because people will react. In Greece, people react simply by not paying taxes. With regard to the estate tax, people will happily pay planners if the net effect is a lower tax burden.

It's always the tax proponent's fantasy that tax rates can simply be increased with a corresponding increase in tax revenue. But that's pure fantasy. People react, and the resulting tax revenue can even end up being less than what was collected in the first place.

So does this mean I advocate huge tax benefits only for the 1% in the hopes that some of it will find it's way down to the 99%? Not at all. The only real solution is a budget that lives within a reasonable tax burden (defined as one that the people of this nation are okay living with). But since everyone has their pet projects that they refuse to cut, and we have no leadership advocating that everyone give up a little in this manner (asking for more taxes is as much of a non-starter as cutting SS or Medicare), we'll simply just have to continue arguing.

Whew, glad we got that solved. ;)