Those who earn capital gains, i.e. Warren Buffet, are said to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Capital gains taxes and dividends taxes are 15% and marginal income tax rates range from, I think, 10%-39.5%. So it is very possible that if one person makes millions of dollars a year, solely from investments, their tax return will show a lower rate than most of the middle class. Because of the rate showed by the individuals' tax returns, it does look like the capitalist fatcats are not "paying their fair share."
Now, let's ignore the fact that they are still paying nominally much more in taxes.
What is still completely missing is if you own shares in a corporation, as a part owner of a corporation, you are paying 15% taxes on capital gains and dividends, but that is after the corporation's profits are taxed at 35%! As an owner of a corporation, your taxes are 35%*corporate profits + the 15% of the remainder for taxes on dividends. That means an owner of a corporation (a shareholder) is paying about 44.75% corporate tax rate! And that's just to the federal government! Many states and cities impose their own corporate taxes. So you have to look at more than just an individual's tax return to see how much an individual is truly paying in taxes. A shareholder owns the fruits of a corporation, as the profits of a sole proprietorship belong to the single owner. What ever taxes are incurred by a corporation are incurred by the shareholders and also by consumers.
Another annoying meme about taxes is about how economic growth and economic outcomes were so much better back when top marginal tax rates were 90%; these talking points are repeated over and over again. They claim that this correlation is absolute proof that higher taxes creates more economic growth. This claim is incredibly dubious. First, people who offer this argument offer no theoretical economic reason for this to happen, they simply cite the correlation. Second, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates, the actual effective tax rates (the rates people actually paid after deductions) was actually lower then than it is now! And third, there are so many factors that go into an economy. I can say that economic growth was much better back in the 50s during a time when American's savings rates were much higher. Although I do believe that higher savings rates create a situation where an economy will have higher and more sustainable growth, I cannot use the aforementioned correlation as proof, only as one piece of evidence to use in conjunction with a sound theoretical argument.
Finally, if the government reduces a tax rate, it is not a loss to government. If government revenue is reduced, this means that the government is stealing, by force (redundant), less than it had previously. It is reducing the penalty against the taxpayer for being productive. That's a gain to society... certainly not a loss to government.
