[khafra]

Any idea if her book is as flawed as the article? For instance, arguing that the top 1% of earners covered 26% of the tax burden in 1986 and 40% in 2006, without mentioning that since the top 1% took 11.3% of the income in 1986 and 22.06% in 2006, the tax rate on the top 10% of income actually decreased substantially? I try to avoid polemics that use statistics so disingenuously.

* http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[dantheman]

I don't think that's using statistics disingenuously; It is a fact that the top 1% covers 40% of the federal government's expenses. Even though the actual income tax rate has decreased they are still footing a huge portion of the bill, and it relates to the sentence after that where she says:"Yet President Barack Obama has made it clear he would like to see the rich pay a greater share." At some point no matter how rich someone is you have to say they've paid enough; I personally think it's a travesty that so much of the budget is paid for by so few.

[khafra]

I'm not sure you're getting the point of measuring taxes on income instead of on income earners--as a reductio ad absurdum, if the top 1% took in 99% of the income, and the total tax burden were a substantial portion of the total income, the top 1% would have to shoulder a significant portion of the tax burden. But any extended discussion along these lines really should move to http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8p79k/rands_atlas_...

[patrickg-zill]

I have not read "The Forgotten Man", may read it in the future.

Actually I thought the article was trying for an easy to understand "hook" with the tax info, since it is unlikely that the top 1% of earners are the bulk of those buying the $7.99 (or whatever it is) paperback edition at the local Barnes and Noble.