[tsupiroti]

> there's no way the top 10% receive 10% of the services.

Depends on how you value the service of protecting that wealth. Prooperty rights enforced by the state, and the more property one has, the more one benefits from that.

[amazingamazing]

but one is taxed based on their income, not their wealth, so that's not relevant at all.

[rgbrgb]

I think you misunderstand. The comment your responding to was arguing against this assertion:

> no way the top 10% receive 3/4 of the services

I think the argument is that the main service USA taxes pay for is defending property and keeping order (via force and infrastructure) such that property rights are honored. The rich have disproportionate property, so they receive disproportionate service.

[amazingamazing]

you keep bringing in property but that's irrelevant to begin with, as that's a wealth construct and I'm only talking about W2 income. if you make more money, you will pay more taxes regardless if whether or not you own any property, so your point is moot.

all 50 states already levy property taxes on real estate so that's already accounted for separately

[rgbrgb]

Property is not just real estate and state property tax is not what is keeping the american billionaire class safe and growing richer.

If you've asked this question in good faith, perhaps isolating and over-defining "income" or "property" is limiting your understanding of the broader question we're responding to: do rich people pay more or less tax compared to the value they get from government? Most here seem to be in agreement that rich get more value from our government than poor do because they have more at stake.