Laelia wrote:
US wealth and income distribution are estimated by the Federal Reserve in the
Survey of Consumer Finances. I'm not sure where you got your tax numbers from (links are useful), but I suspect they're only for federal income tax. That's not the only type of tax you pay, and when you include all taxes the distribution is much less progressive.

I can't find the 2000 breakdown again, I'll have to check my history when I get back home tonight, but the best example of the 2008 stat breakdowns is
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html.
Since we're talking about federal taxes, I didn't include "other" taxes in with it. State/local taxes, when combined with the federal taxes, will by necessity make the numbers less progressive. This is because states, unlike the federal government, do not have a 'captive audience.' Look at California and New York, two states losing high-income tax payers who are opting to leave those states for states with friendlier tax codes. If you look up the stats for job/population growth, you're going to see the states with heavily progressive income tax codes are losing population (Anthony Weiner's congressional district may disappear because NY lost a congressional district) while states like FL, with no income tax at all, are becoming more populous.
New York has become so desperate that it sends a tax bill to people who have moved out of the state over a decade ago
(one famous example)...then audits non-residents to make them prove they're really non-residents. They also, if I'm not mistaken, levy an income tax on non-residents who work in the state (no taxation without representation, amirite?).
So I didn't include "other taxes" because I'm not discussing "other taxes." Kind of like how I don't say "wealth" when I'm really talking about "income."
Also food for thought:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375951025762400.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_hYour Pal,
Jubber