just how much more do you want them to pay for your inability to pay more tax?

yes a personal attack assuming that I pay no taxes is really brilliant. First of all what difference does that make, and second I probably pay as much or more than you do! don't assume I am poor because I am defending the poor.

Did you check out any of the links I posted above?

New York Times: September 15, 2004
In the past nearly three years of economic recovery, the distribution of economic growth has become more skewed than at any other time in modern memory. Currently, 47 percent of growth is flowing to corporate profits, by far the largest share than that in any of the other eight post-World War II recoveries. Fifteen percent goes to wages and salaries, the smallest share of economic growth in more than 50 years. To make matters worse, the share of compensation that is devoted to health and pension benefits is far larger during this recovery than in any other, representing a further squeeze on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans. In 2004, take-home pay as a share of the economy dropped to its lowest level since 1929, when the government started keeping records.

Mark Weisbrot, People Before Profits
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 09/23/04 14:45

The Bush team’s tax policy seems deliberately designed to shift the burden of taxes from the richest taxpayers to those who are, in their estimation, lower down on the food chain.

Getting rid of the estate that is, inheritance tax benefited less than 2 percent of taxpayers; about half of them got a windfall averaging $3.4 million. Reducing capital gains taxes is another giveaway to the rich, enabling billionaires to pay a lower marginal tax rate on their income from stock sales than that what a nurse or truck driver pays on their wages. And then there is the tax cut on stock dividends: many people thought that they would get at least something from this, since they own at least some stock in their retirement accounts. But they were tricked here too: if you have a retirement account, your income from dividends will be taxed when you withdraw the money for retirement. Only those who own stocks outside of retirement accounts overwhelmingly very rich people got a break.


ECONOMIC ISSUES OF GENERAL PAYROLL TAXES
by
Jonathan R. Kesselman
September 1996
CRESP Discussion Paper: DP-41
Department of Economics Discussion Paper No.: 96-27
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH
ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
VANCOUVER, CANADA V6T 1Z1


Labour incomes or payrolls are one of three major types of tax base on flows of economic
resources; the other two are capital income and consumption.1 These three bases, plus a
related concept of cash flows which is an alternate way of implementing a consumption
base have important interrelationships. The capital income base includes returns to the ownership of business, investment, and property assets. Another tax base, total income,
consists of the sum of two of the three generic bases, labour incomes plus capital incomes.
The consumption base equals total income minus current savings.2 Neither the payroll
base nor the consumption base (or its twin cash-flow base) taxes the ordinary returns to
capital, so that neither directly affects the incentives for savings, the allocation of capital
resources, or lifetime consumption choices. All three tax bases place a wedge between the
amount employers pay and what employees receive and hence potentially distort incentives
in the labour market. However, a tax base that does not apply to capital sources will need
to impose a higher rate and greater distortions on the labour market.



The financial wealth of the top one percent of households now exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent.
The wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans grew by an average $940 million each from 1997-1999 while over a recent 12-year period the net worth of the bottom 40 percent of households declined 80 percent.
The richest 400 Americans hold wealth equivalent to one-eighth of the GDP.
The average wealth of the Forbes 400 was $200 million in 1982, just after the enactment of the Reagan-Bush "supply-side" tax package - paid for with $872 billion in deficit financing. By 1986, their average wealth was $500 million.


Source: Congressional Budget Office, Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2002, March 2005

Changes in Average After-Tax Income by
Income Group, 1979-2002
(in 2002 dollars)
Income Category 1979 2002 Percent-Change Dollar-Change
Lowest fifth $13,200 $13,800 4.5% $600
Second fifth $26,700 $29,900 12.0% $3,200
Middle fifth $38,000 $43,700 15.0% $5,700
Fourth fifth $49,800 $61,700 23.9% $11,900
Top fifth $87,700 $130,000 48.2% $42,300
Top 1 Percent $298,900 $631,700 111.3% $332,800

MajMike: typical Neocon tactic. Whenever the subject of lies or liar comes up, you guys lie louder and longer...this time it's about me being a liar...

It's a life script for you. Feel sorry for you that you have to live up to it.

These absurdities means that someone making $10,000 pays tax at a higher rate than someone making $5,000, while someone with no other income than the interest on $100 million in tax-free munis pays nothing.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rlewis_20041115.html

how would those social services and infrastructure get built?

And again the top 5% own 80% of the country so they should pay 80% of it's cost.

while someone with no other income than the interest on $100 million in tax-free munis pays nothing.

tax-free munis