Re: No s##t Sherlock...
You are incorrect in assuming that "total tax" is "maximum possible tax", and that therefore the wealthy are paying anywhere near their fair share.
Total income tax paid: 100
Person making 10 pay 5 = 50% of income. Pays 5% of total tax collected.
Person making 1000 pay 95 = 9.5% of income. Pays 95% of total tax collected, but has a MUCH lower rate of taxation. If they were paying taxes equally, the top would pay the same rate as the lower-middle. But if the rich paid their actual fair share, the lower-middle would not need to be taxed at all as heavily.
You are, like so many of the apologists for the rich, comparing total PAID and trying to equate it with percentage of income. In other words, your math is misleading. I'd say deliberately so, at least by those who first came up with that particular bit of propaganda that you are repeating.
A more fair, graduated distribution of tax would be for person making 10 to pay 1 (leaving only 9, but paying only 10% of total income as tax), and for the person making 1000 to pay 200, leaving 800, which is still 88 times more, but paying 20% of total income as tax.
Total tax revenue would therefore be 210, which would equate to more money for social programs, education, and health care, especially for those who aren't even making 10.
Making any changes revenue "neutral" (as compared to the current unequal system), the person earning 10 could pay 0.5 (5%), and the person earning 1000 would pay 95.5, or a net 9.5% of income. Just 1/2 a percent more than they pay under the old system. Total tax revenue stays at 100 under that model, but with a more equitable distribution.
Again, it's percentage of income that counts, with those at the top being MUCH more able to afford higher percentage than those at or near the bottom. "Total tax paid" is a meaningless and even completely misleading metric.
PS: off the cuff example, so there might be calculation errors. If so, my apologies,but I think the argument still stands in the face of potential miscalculations.