First, The Defense Department is just that – for defense. For those who might understand the difference between what forces are needed for offense versus defense, the forces needed for offense are normally 3 to 4 times the forces needed for defense. The U.S. has forces needed for defense, not offense. Look at the the forces of the Soviet Union and China and you'll see forces designed for offense, not defense. You won't hear this from the party whose leaders haven't served. And it takes adequate weaponry to defend yourself. Let your police department using pistols confront criminals with machine guns and you'll understand that good weaponry is needed to confront crime and terrorism/aggression.

Second, those in the top 50 % of taxpayers, since 1990, have paid over 96% of the income tax collected. In recent years the percentage paid by the high earners has increased, not decreased. The portion paid by the top 1% of taxpayers is some 30% of tax paid. That group happens to have companies and investments that create many of the jobs in our country – a group that Obama wants to tax even more. Have you ever heard the phrase "don't eat your seed corn"? That's what he proposes.

Bill in Knoxville

Due to a change in corporate tax, a lot of entities which used to be taxed as corporations chose to be taxed as partnerships or sole proprietors. Since partnerships, LLC's and sole proprietorships are considered to be "disregarded entities", the taxable net income of the firm ends up on individual returns. Thus, some of what now constitutes individual income today was counted as corporate income in 1980. Obviously, all that shift in income classification had the biggest impact on the top 1%.

Of course it's just pure coincidence that tax rate cuts are always correlated with the top 1% paying a larger share of total income taxes collected and higher tax revenue. The fact that they paid a much smaller share with a top marginal tax rate of 90% and less tax revenue was collected is also mere coincidence. After all, people don't respond to incentives and would work just as hard and take as much risk (of starting a business, say) if the incremental dollar was taxed at 80% as they would if the incremental dollar were taxed at 20%. Makes total sense – as long as we're not talking about humans.

I've heard these dire Marxist warnings about societal instability since I was knee-high to a grasshopper as part of the constant propaganda piped to us by the Soviet government from the time I was a tiny child in the USSR. The truth is, nowhere is income inequality and instability more more pronounced than in countries that seek "income equality". Let's forget the Soviet Union for a minute because "obviously" they just screwed everything up and Americans would do it so much better because we're not Russians and that makes all the difference. I dare you to go to the suburbs of Paris, where unemployment runs about 47% for minorities, and experience the deep societal stability of riots and 100 cars torched on an average Saturday night (according to Paris police). And that's just for a start.

If you want to prevent this country from becoming a banana republic, then don't copy the egalitarian failures of banana republics. If you remove the incentives for success, you won't have any.

Perhaps Jeff, it would be more productive to your goals, if you are sincere, to not just focus on what you claim is "growing income inequality" and focus on why there is such a thing if indeed there is.

BTW Jeff, by what standards is there a "growing income inequality". What is the benchmark? Our old village idiot, muirduck, could claim it but never identify it. Perhaps you can do better.

Why do we have more and more people sitting on their asses, not getting an education of even the most basic level, using the "excuse" as their first line of defense to any criticism of their nonproductivity, whining about how their job went away (as if they had guaranteed lifetime employment), etc. etc. It is so easy to excuse, whine and complain when actually improving your own lot is actual work.

Work! Oh God another one of those 4 letter words.

I work and my income has been on the growing side of that inequality.

"I'd rather focus on policies that prevent us from becoming a banana republic.
Posted by: Jeff | Jul 23, 2008 4:18:31 PM"

Really? Well just keep insisting on socialist policies that forcefully even income out and we too can become a new Chile and plunge downhill. In other words, Jeff, nothing will guarantee our becoming a banana republic quicker then following your heart.

Regardless of the factors that are driving this, growing income inequality creates quite perverse political dynamics and makes for unstable societies as a whole.

Instead of being a tax-cuts-cure-all-ills ideologue and whining about being overtaxed, I'd rather focus on policies that prevent us from becoming a banana republic.