Okay, let me try and guess what I didn't address...
Mitt hiding something: Fine. Fact is, if you are going to judge whether or not you are going to vote for someone based on his tax payments, you'll be lost looking for people to vote for. Congressman Reid got mega rich while on a congressional salary. Couldn't have anything to do with inside deals with land he owned? I know you **didn't** bring him up, I'm making a point, that this government is not your friend and not operating in your best interest, red or blue. Croney Capitlism has failed. Is he hiding anything? No. He is simpliy withholding something he has every right to withhold. Obama withholds a bunch of information and this wouldn't be a problem if he didn't create this "classware" meme.
b) "all of the other taxes people at the middle and lower ends of the spectrum pay" - again, outside of social security, what tax do middle and lower ends pay that the upper ends don't? Look, if you want to move back to Clinton era rates, fine. You'll see that it doesn't solve the problem or come close to solving the problem. Not to mention our government has a horrid track record with what they spend our money on. Why on Earth would you want to give them more? How about they actually show some curb to spending and then I'll conceed them stealing more of my money.
c) "the fact that wealth is increasingly concentrated at the very top, more so now than at any time since the 1920s" please point out a time in the history of man kind where there wasn't have's and have nots. Please show me where the poor in this country are worse off than the poor in India, China and Africa. Now, I'll give you that the wealth is concentrated at the top. Your plan is to get the wealthly to give their money to their friends (government) who has proven (with TARP) that they are just going to giveit back to them rather than let the free market work and punish them for bad choices? If I'm missunderstanding your plan, please explain.
d)"Those poor widdle babies in the top 10 percent may pay 70 percent of the income taxes, but they also have >80 percent of the wealth in America" Very adult rebuttal. But besides the childish fallacy, http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
as of 2009, the top 10% actually have 43% of the taxable revenue (AGI), so about half your 80% figure. And they cover 70% of the tax burden. That is people making over 112k a year. Now, on the right we see the average % of AGI paid... Lets look at that shall we: Bottom 50% of people that file pay an average 1.85% tax rate, Top 1% pay 24% of AGI on average. the 5-10% (middle class) pay 11.4% of AGI in tax... The 10-25% of earners only pay an average 8% on their AGI. So I ask, what is their fair share, if this isn't fair? Unless these numbers changed under Obama, which I doubt because he extended Bush's rates, I don't see how this is unfair. The rich are the system.
e)"They don't pay enough to support the system that supports and perpetuates their wealth" I'm not sure if you are getting into a 'you didn't build' that argument, but based on above you are wrong. They are the vast majority of the system. Everyone making more than 110k a year is the system. People making more than 250k (somewhere between the 5-1%) cover at least 20% of our tax burden, while having a similar amount of the AGI. They are the system, they do support it.
Here is the thing, we have very very rich people and companies (apple) with massive profits overseas right? Do you really think those profits and jobs will come back if we raise taxes?
How about we take government out of business, and get them back to paving roads, making GOOD schools, helping people get back on their feet and protecting our nation, and stop giving them the power that big business and Wall St covets, so they buy policy?
EDIT: added a didn't
EDIT2: I basically call AGI taxable revenue, and that isn't accurate. There are deductions standard/itemized between AGI and Taxable income. This will effect the % of income paid. But seeing as AGI is higher than taxable income, those % should go up accross the board, but may go up less for the more wealthy.