Apparently the line is drawn between the 99% and the 1%, although I prefer the 53% vs the 47% personally. Here is how the share of AGI breaks down between various income levels:
OK so what about taxes, the Rich don't pay enough. They don't pay their "Fair Share"
So right now they pay less of the tax burden than they did during the good times. In fact, under the Bush rates, at the peak of the boom the top 1% paid more of the tax burden. Does this mean that the 99% support the Bush economic policy? No probably not. Here's another observation, I am guessing that most of the so called 99% actually fall in the 50%. This is based solely on appearance, personal grooming, and photos of the signs at the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Please don't bitch about someone's fair share of taxes when you don't pay them. Oh winter can't come soon enough!
Still think some people aren't paying their fair share. Here is the Average Tax rates for various income groupings as defined by the IRS (AGI/Income Tax)
Taxes under Bush went down for everyone. Taxes on the bottom 50% are at Post WWII lows. What is missing from this graph is income growth. Taxes increased during the Clinton years, but income also increased so relative standard of living increased; not to mention other special circumstances defining the 90's that I will post about some other day.
These plots really don't tell the whole story. I came up with the Fairness Factor. I defined it as the ratio between an percentile group's percent share of Income Taxes Paid vs. percent share of AGI:
Here is a graph of The Fairness Factor from 1988-2009:
Throughout the 90's the top 1%'s share of the tax burden relative to AGI went down, even though they paid higher tax rates. I'm not sure what this means, but at least you can make up your own mind on what "Fairness" means.