Best chart i can find for that...  Ignore the red australian line.  Seems like a 10% change in burden for a 3% change in gini coefficent since 95.  Although, is your tax burden chart for Individual income tax or household...because the Invidiual Gini coefficent has actually shrunk.

From the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% have an effective federal tax rate of 2.5%. However, there may discounts and refunds that likely drop that rate. So then, the only taxes paid are usually sales tax (when applicable), and payroll taxes, which are for pensions.

That is not the past 60 years.  I called bull on the past 60 years regarding this.  Also, you are looking at who is paying what taxes here.  This is different than how much they pay as a percentage of their income.  What would be needed to be seen, to fully argue what was argued is that the percentage of their incomes they pay in taxes is higher now than the past 60 years or so.

This goes into details into what is going on, and their increase in income:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/

Why does the tax show up like this?  Well, it is because their income is in the higher tax bracket, because they are pulling in more money now than the past.  As income grows and the differential increases, the income in the differential is at the higher tax brackets.  If the income growth were more evenly spread, then you wouldn't see this.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen data that goes back prior to 1980. However, given the data, its very unlikely that the trend was much different. Unless you can provide something that would suggest otherwise.

Longer would be useful to give things perspective.  However, I will doubt that anyone can say that the effective tax rate on the top 1% is at the highest rate it has been in 60 years.  Paying more of a percentage of taxes is explained by the above though.

Well, all this then points to a potential problem systemically with the economy.  If you are running deficits, with those who aren't at the top falling further and further behind so you can't raise their taxes (and cutting benefits to them accelerates things) then you are faced with a situation where the economy is stuck, and not able to end up freeing up sufficient additional revenues to invest, and thus damages itself long term.  What has been going on is the tax rate on the high end has continued to be reduced, and the economy is losing the middle class.  Could be now there is a systemic structural flaws that would doom the American economy at this point.

To be fair, they've reduced the effective rates on everyone by significant margins. Effective rates among the top 1% have dropped about 30% since the 80s, but dropped 60% on the bottom 50% since the 80s.

You are just misinformed, I am afraid. The rich are paying much less than they did 60 years ago, when they were taxed 91% of their personal income. 

As for a list of parties, the is European only, but anything on the left of the 'centrist' column is considered left wing, although I would generally describe Liberal Democrats as centrist. That might just be my Australian perspective. Our Lib Dems aren't really left wing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_political_parties_in_Europe_by_pancontinental_organisation

Since you're posting in this thread yet completely ignoring my posts, i'm guessing your quietly conceding the fact that in recent bailout history it's been the rightwing groups of the country refusing bailouts.... and the leftwing groups trying to bail things?  As was the case BOTH in Iceland and the US.

Well and Germany for that matter.  Though Merkel is trying to get the bailouts of greek and italian banks done, it's mostly pressure from her own party and voters that are pushing against her making people think she may be done.

Except they aren't falling furhter behind really.  The poor have gotten comparitvly richer gini coefficent wise on an individual level.  On  a household level it's gotten worse but only for individuals not as far as "bottoming out" goes.  The poor now are richer then they've been nearly ever. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=137687&page=1#12

Once our structural changes in relationships and women in the workforce become stabized... the household and family gini coefficent should decrease instead of increase... just like the individual rates.  Upword mobility should increase as well since the reason upword mobility rates have remained stagnant since the 90's is that despite greater mobility through effort and other means, there has been much less "Marrying out of class".

What's happening right now is two people making 200 grand a year marry and their the top 1%... counted as one household with 400,000  deplacing a sole earner of say... 350,000 from the top 1%.

Or even wores... two 400,000 people marry, they change to $800,000 for 1 instead of 400,000 for 2, and that bumps the 350,000 guy up into the 1%.  Giving the top 1% an extra 350,000 dollars without anyone in the top 1% actually making anymore money!

Indiviudal gini coefficent rates have been essentially unchanged since the 1960's.  Ironically what's been changing Gini coefficent might be the women's liberation movement making  a somewhat meaningless change in the numbers due to  well, women bringing home the bacon.

(Which is still a good thing for sure.)

You didn't bother reading my statement, did you?

You showed tax brackets, not effective rates. I said the total burden is higher today than it was for the rich, which is an absolutely true statement. Yes, they pay less than they did, but that doesn't negate the fact they pay a higher percentage than they did. If the rich used to pay 20% of all income taxes, and now pay 40%, then they are shouldering more of the burden - even if their effective rate is lower.

As for policies of the left - one could argue their penchant for more social programmes would bolster specific businesses and services, should private companies do business in that sector. For example, when the Socialists came into power in Spain, they spent billions of dollars on green subsidies - which went lock, stock, and barrel to private energy companies. Companies that promoted these kinds of power were the ones that were subsidized. I could also discuss many other types of subsidies favored by the left which directly benefit large corporations. For example, America's 'Cash for Clunkers' deal which was pushed by the Democrats in the US was a direct copy of programs devised by left-leaning governments. These subsidies went to the auto industry, which is certainly a pro-corpratist idea.