Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

It is amazing how figures don't lie but liars can figure.From your link.

quote:

---

What matters more is the average marginal tax rate — that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.

​

And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.

---

And from a Wall Street Journal propaganda piece

quote:

---

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

​

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolicvery few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

---

So how do the wealthy end up paying more with a lower tax rate? By making exponentially more than other taxpayers compared to 1958. All this data proves is that wealth is consolidating in the hands of the extremely wealthy. It is not at all an argument that tax rates on the wealthy are to high. It is an argument that tax rates are too low.

This too. Claiming something is the average tax rate means nothing. What are their workings to come up with an average? Why do you think average means anything?
Do you understand the terms average, mean, median and mode? In order for their argument to have any validity I think they need to look at mean, median and mode.Also, that the average tax rate has gone up, again shows that there is an extreme concentration of wealth. If there was not an extreme flow of capital to the already wealthy, then the average tax rate would have not risen so much.Looking at average tax rates does nothing to support or deny your argument. It is just a distraction, an attempt to obfuscate the issue. There is an extreme problem in the USA with concentration of wealth. Ultimately, that concentration makes the economy unsustainable and your argument untenable.

Please show where this was said. Please explain what was said and why it is not correct. The people, through congress. Have you never read the Constitution? Strawman much. The 1% are not innovators. If you think they are provide some support. The 1% take few risks. The game is rigged heavily in their favor. If they are taking risks than they must fail at some times. Show that some of the 1% take actual risks. If they are getting guaranteed returns it isn't much of a risk, is it.

Actually I support a socialist agenda. I kinda like the VA(Veterans Administration for those not from USA), Social Security, US Military. Oh and that most socialist organization in the USA, the local volunteer fire department.