[greeneggs]

> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons.

I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection.

Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?

[speakfreely]

Yes, you can twist public benefits to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition, also the first result on Google, reads "Public benefits are forms of assistance provided by the government to individuals and families, often based on need, to help with various aspects of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and financial stability. These benefits are typically funded through taxpayer dollars and aim to alleviate financial burdens and promote well-being." I think it's pretty clear that's what everyone is talking about here.

Are you trying to imply that the people who don't pay federal income tax have heavy state tax burdens? Or you think they're making a dent with their sales tax contributions? The only thing that everyone pays indirectly or directly is property taxes, which averages to about 1-2% of income. Again, nothing close to federal income taxes (for those that pay them).

[anonymars]

You mention healthcare and "financial stability" (which we can perhaps call "Social Security") both of which are separate federal taxes

Also this completely handwaves the regressive nature of sales tax, which hits much harder when you spend a large percentage of your income