No.

Reality is complicated. You want to complain that 22k isn't representative of the bottom 90%, because it's not. It wasn't intended to be, if I wanted to make something perfectly representative of reality, I would need to set up a much more complicated situation. 

Because it is impossible to generalize perfectly.

Like this generalization, it depends on where you live. 

200k in some parts of California, is probably struggling to own a tiny house. 

200k per year in some parts of the Midwest, you could easily own a couple of good houses that practically look like mansions compared to those California houses. 

it's hard to generalize when there are millions of different situations. Whether you have 5 kids or 2 or 0, whether you have nice cars or $2k cars that drive but are pretty beaten up. Even what town you live in - which affects the cost of housing. All of those things massively make differences. 

200k is in the top 10%, and 22k is in the bottom 90%. 

And yet you took issue with one, but not the other. 200k is not representative of the entire top 10%, just like 22k is not representative of the bottom 90%.  

Yet liberals aren't losing those elections. They're not losing California, New York or Illinois.  

And yet a lot of these people are moving to areas where taxes are high in different ways. A lot of those people are moving to Texas where property taxes are so much higher that most of them are paying more in taxes than the Californians are.  

The bigger issue that California is having is that they're not building enough houses. 

I was originally going to set up a completely different scenario of a billion people making a dollar and 1 person making a billion dollars. Would it be fair for each half to be paying the same amount of taxes? 

This is the point of the thought experiment - I added this comment before you wrote your post, but apparently you quoted before I edited so you missed it:

If tomorrow your wages doubled, your costs wouldn't double. You need a smaller percentage of your income to live as you make more. Housing and food don't suddenly cost more just because you make more money. Your first thousand dollars is much more important than your millionth thousand dollars. 

Billionaires are not living the same quality of life as everyone else just 1000s of times more expensive than everyone else for some reason.  

I think the answer to that thought experiment is it is pretty obviously not fair. But I am sure you are going to deflect, because you feel it doesn't properly convey reality, or maybe you feel the people who have a dollar in this scenario obviously did something wrong. 

I would have been considered a liberal all the way until the 2010's or something like that. At that point, the left took a double jump to even further left so that most people were left behind wondering what happened.
What "left leaning" means today does not apply to me anymore, and they categorize everyone outside of their extreme end to be right wing anyways, so there we go. There is no middle now, at least according to them.

Liberals want everything to be a reeking pile of mediocrity so we are all equal, and solely depend on the government. I just don't agree. Excellence shouldn't be shunned, it should be celebrated.

Like a wise person once said, the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.  

I mean we live in a free society.  You can always donate YOUR money.  The problem is YOU want to decide what to do what MY money.  

People making 200k in the Midwest do not own two houses.  And housing being a problem in Cali sounds like a liberal problem.  Again, your take on the Midwest is so unbelievably inaccurate.

Yeah, I do think liberals have this odd view that people who struggle have no choice.  And people who succeed were just lucky.  It is off putting and another reason liberals are got smoked in the election, at all levels of government.

And the current system is fine, but liberals want to raise taxes on the top.  The top 10% pay 72% of taxes.  The top 50% pay 97%...  conclusion "take more money" is absurd.

At the end of the day your view is some odd camp fire kumbiyah and lacks actual human behavior, desire and motivation.

Liberals want everything to be a reeking pile of mediocrity so we are all equal, and solely depend on the government.  I just don't agree.  Excellence shouldn't be shunned, it should be celebrated.  

Like a wise person once said, the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.  

I mean we live in a free society.  You can always donate YOUR money.  The problem is YOU want to decide what to do what MY money.  

There is no such thing as "your money" except what society decides is reasonable for you to claim. At some point we decided it was okay for certain people to, through the threat of violence, confiscate common natural resources for their own personal benefit. Through a similar fashion, the proletariat can decide to reclaim said resources, when it realizes the elites aren't handling that extreme privilege responsibly. We are approaching that tipping point, hence we are seeing the oligarchs using more and more desperate means to hold on to power, through things like Project 2025, DOGE, Palentir and military in the US streets. As well as building doomsday bunkers for themselves.

A reeking pile of mediocrity is the state of the west right now my friend, and that is probably putting it mildly. And we only have one economic system to blame for that.

Well okay, this joke of a response clearly shows how a serious discussion with you is out of question. You simply tout the same old lines that you've dropped ten pages ago. Which have already been spoken about, but you can't even bother to adress anything that's slightly uncormfortable to you. Great debating style, man. 

Please.  The debate isn't going anywhere because you (and many others) want to ignore 50% of the population pays 97%.  You (and others) want to ignore the US is dominating world markets.  You (and many others) want to paint the US as being some struggling falling behind country, but the reality the US is top 15 in most categories and has an absurd amount of upward mobility.  You simply want to paint the US as something it is not.  

edit

Want another stat?  MS is the US's poorest state.  And MS has around the GDP per capita as the United Kingdom.   

US is 4% of the world's population but 27% of the world's GDP....  

Please.  The debate isn't going anywhere because you (and many others) want to ignore 50% of the population pays 97%.  You (and others) want to ignore the US is dominating world markets.  You (and many others) want to paint the US as being some struggling falling behind country, but the reality the US is top 15 in most categories and has an absurd amount of upward mobility.  You simply want to paint the US as something it is not.  

edit

Want another stat?  MS is the US's poorest state.  And MS has around the GDP per capita as the United Kingdom.   

US is 4% of the world's population but 27% of the world's GDP....  

But stock value is not the point. We are talking about power distance and the imbalance of wealth. Are you really making the claim that the US would suffer if the wealth was better distributed?