and your point is what? paying a higher percentage of their income makes life harder for them, than it does for the rich paying a higher dollar value but lower percentage of total income.

The point is that infrastructure was mainly paid by the rich, not that life is easier for the poor.

the infrastructure was paid for by tax, the rich didn't altruistically pay for it, they paid tax, tax was used to fund it..very different kettle of fish to the rich paying for infrastructure directly.

I never said they altruistically paid it. All I am saying is that without them, we couldn't have paid for it.

that's not necessarily true though is it. first off the government has no issue creating money to bailout corporations, thus the money could be created/borrowed to pay for infrastructure projects and repaid over the long term. Secondly 'without them' would mean without the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Well if we didn't have them it would be because of a more equal sharing of the wealth, thus the same tax revenue could be gained from a wider share of the population. The economy has the same value/size it is just currently concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no reason it could not be more equally spread out, except that those with money, get to buy those in power and lobby for rules that make them richer and make it harder for people to compete with them.