I can agree with that, also the likely hood of even crossing that gap or ending up some where in between.

I didn't address the more complicated elements of the tax system, because I'm Australian, and thus do not know all of the finer points, like tax credits, social security taxes, etc. I figured I'd restrict attention to regular taxes.

In Australia, there are no "social security taxes" - we have an aged pension for those who need it, and we have a direct social security protection, but they all operate under regular taxes. We then have superannuation, which is added cost to the employer beyond the official wage, and goes into a private account that you can't access until retirement age.

But then, I looked at America's income taxes... and they're atrocious. People earning less than $8500 a year are still paying 10% tax - that's absurd. In Australia, if you earn less than $6000 a year, you pay no income tax (we do have a "medicare levy", though - ) - that is, 0%. It's then 15% for every dollar over $6000, until $37,000, then 30% up to $80,000, then 37% up to $180,000, then 45% above that. But more than this, the current government has established a change starting July 2012, in which the tax-free threshold is increased to $18,200 (up from $6000).

You're either Wealthy or Poor. There is no middle class.

Well to put it more simply. 

A) A lot of people mistakenly think life is like a pizza.  Where for every slice a rich person eats a poor person is deprived.

In reality, life is like an MMORPG.  The amount of "gold and expierence" that exist in the world continues to grow.  The rich get richer by earning more and being better suited to earn more.  However the poor aren't disadvantaged.

Like an MMO your basics.... "Shop" prices stay fairly constant to what your low level and casual players make, while your high end stuff "Epic loot, stuff only sold at auctions" tends to increase much more rapidly in cost.

B) The Gini coefficent is what is used to figure out how unequal wealth distribution is in a country.

The one that's commonly reported is household.  For example, My girlfriend and I's earnings, vs our married neighbors earnings, vs our single friends earnings etc.

While the OTHER way of doing so is INDIVIDUALs.,   So, my girlfirend vs me, vs that husband, vs that wife, vs that single guy.

The second one is what would measure "The rich getting richer" and isn't growing... the Gini coefficent is actually growing because of women's empowerment in the workforce.   As an example.

Say this is the 50's.   You're making the 2012 equivelent of $250,000.    Your wife is making likely, nothing.  So your Household and Individual Gini coefficent is 250,000.

Now say it's 2012.  You're making $250,000.  You end up marrying the woman who works at the firm with you.  (In the 50's, there would of been no women there.)   Your Individual gini coefficent is $250,000,  Your household gini coefficent is now $500,000.

The rich aren't getting richer(on average) by the matthew effect or anything if this was the case Individual gini coefficent would be rising at at least half the pace of household. Instead it's actually shrunk a bit since the 90's. 

It's raising because there are now self made rich women, and they want to marry rich men.  Often men Richer ten them due to the sexism that still exists in society since they, and sometimes the man who marries them wouldn't feel like  "A man" being married to a female bread winner.

Once women get full representation in the workforce, gini coefficent caused by this should peak.  Then shrink as the stigma of being married to a woman who earns more/man who earns less shrinks.

True. I was referring to the middle ages and the fall of rome, etc.

Both these periods had alot to do with the oppression of Christianity. Which you can say the Christians of the right are once again waging a religious political war but only if it benefits the rich. So yes I see your point.

I'm sorry but this is straight non-sense. Just my opinion but the ways you use things to twist to your view point is remarkable. You should try to get a job on fox news.

How am I twisting things.  I'm using basic data from the US Census.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Y25WlUbsXM/TqdJJKE5YHI/AAAAAAAAEgc/mEfoQs_f7xs/s1600/US-Gini-Coefficient-for-Individuals-Families-Households-1994-2010.png

The difference between the richer individuals and the poorer individuals is LOWER then it was in 1994.  While for families and households it is higher.

Therefore, the difference in the rise in the latter two is not caused by the former one.

That's about as straight and not twisting of the data as you could possibly get.

It's a direct reading of specific data gathered by the government.

If you have an alternate reading of this data, or have a fault with the way the data was collected, feel free to state why you hold such an opinion.

Until you do however, logically your opinion just looks foolish... because it's not really based on anything.  You may as well have the opinion that evolution isn't real.  Afterall that's just another form of ignoring data with no actual rebuttal.

I mean you can argue that such a thing is problematic even though it's caused by structural changes and not by an inherent unfairness that will remain unabated and that things need to be done in the short term until things level out.

However to actually question the data without any sort of counter purely on a faith basis is asinine.

everyone can become rich. most rich become rich by working harder than everyone else or having a special talent. work hard and you too can become rich!

So, do you have a million dollars lying around that you can bet people regarding this?  If not, why not?  After all, if EVERYONE can become rich, then surely you are, right?

One form of rationalization people do, who refuse to admit they are stuck and won't be able to change things, is to end up setting very high standards, that means they can deal with it, if they just remove this or that, or do this or that.  You see it from smokers, and addicts.  They will go, "I can quit at any time."  Rather than face the prospects that they won't be able to do it, because things are just too unmanageable, and not possible the way things are, they say this.  Same happens with people rationalizing they can get rich.  There is a good chunk of luck that goes into getting rich that is required, IN ADDITION TO, working harder and being more gifted than anyone else.  To deny this is to deny reality.

That being said, it is very possible you are practicing sarcasm here.  If you were, you probably need to go a bit more over the top to make it clear.