In article > , George Grapman wrote:

> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
> wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush
> Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also
> ignores that little detail.

Even if so, I don't see how that invalidates the theme of it. Or how I
used it. Sure there maybe a few people that have little or no taxable
wages and make a ton in capitial gains or some such that they pay taxes on,
but I would guess they are too few to bust the basic theme. In fact,
such people would reinforce my point that it is dangerous where only
some people are carrying the tax burden. It allows that large segment of
the population to take at will from those that are paying.