Inference is generally wrong. I would prefer you state it directly. What is your definition of fair w.r.t. taxation?

as for fairness, i think it can be inferred from the thread what i think is fair. good discussion and i wish i could keep it going, but i have got to spend this week doing a ton of work on stuff that i’m supposed to become an expert in. see if you can get some repsonses from some others left of center on fairness, i’m curious what they say.

Like the other Founders, Adams was fully aware that the Constitution would serve as a basis for the nation’s future economic life. He did not conceive of economic deportment as something apart from political and social endeavors. Adams read virtually every major work in history, politics, law, and social thought available in his time. He certainly knew exactly what Greek, Roman, and Scholastic philosophers, sages, and theologians had said about the material sphere of life. He displayed knowledge of French Physiocracy and admired the axiom that most wealth, at least honestly got wealth, originated in agriculture. Of course, toil in crafts, services, and the small industries of the times was meritorious as well. Adams accepted Smith’s doctrine of free trade, as did Veblen, and certainly recognized the potential contribution of liberated foreign and domestic commerce to America’s expanding economy. His approach to economic policy was pragmatic and unpredicated on either a bias towards state action or the market. He believed in the law-and-order and contractenforcement functions of government and the need for an independent and responsible judiciary. In this sense, he demonstrates his lawyerly mien, which still so dominates Washington and state-level policymaking in the United States, and so frequently bedevils those enthusiastic, well-intended economic policy counselors who seek instant and rational application of the principles of The Modern Economic Science to the complicated material affairs of the nation’s and states’ commonwealths.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3620/is_199710/ai_n8780905/pg_8

Also, Smith has a LOT of numbers — pound, shillings, and pence — in his writings, which, while making good, solid examples, does not make for smooth reading.

Sorry for the confusion.

Obviously I have read much more on the subject than you have. I suspect you have read neither Adams nor Sowell. I have read many books by authors with whom I disagree. I have read Das Capital. I have read God’s Economics. Both support the socialist politics of O’Bama, and naturally, both have gaping logical flaws.

It is by reading a wide variety of material that one gets to the point of actual understanding.

We have seen the results of socialism. It has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried. Resources are not unlimited. You cannot give everyone everything they want. If the government is going to provide health care, for instance, it must ration it. Do you want the government to tell you what operations you may have? That’s how things are in England.

Why don’t you try to BE in the top 5%, el jefe, instead of just stealing from them?

Because the wealthy are the ones creating the jobs, and making the capital investments.

“if you favor tax reductions, why not raise the cutoff so that more people do not pay taxes?”

Why should people not pay taxes, yet receive the benefits and privileges of citizenship? This is the modus operandi of the left — take from the few, give to the many, and the many will vote for you. It is very dangerous to have a majority of people who do not contribute to the government, but who have a say in how that money is collected and spent.

“i don’t see this hindering investment, this money goes back into the economy in terms of services and paying off debt and would even ‘trickle-up.’ the wealthy would still have large sums of available income.”

For one thing, the money spent in the process of collecting and redistributing the money is wasted — nothing productive comes from the accountants and tax collectors. Then there is the problem that giving a bunch of people money just raises the prices of everything. And if you take away part of the rewards, people are less willing to take risks — i.e., invest in capital improvements.

“i certainlly don’t have a degree in economics, but the sign of a healthy economy around the world appears to be a large and strong middle class with a disposable income, not an untaxed wealthy elite.”

But is that a result of a strong economy, or the cause? I contend that it is the result. We see China now with a strong economy, and their middle class is very small indeed. We must ask ourselves, how did those in the middle class get to be middle class. I daresay the majority got there by working for someone who is wealthy. Those who have small businesses, plumbers, electricians, etc., generally borrowed capital (hence the term “capitalism”) to start their businesses, to buy their trucks, tools, etc. From whom did they borrow? The wealthy.

A landowner has hired a plowman who can, with a horse-drawn plow, plow one acre each day. (Just as an aside, this was the earliest definition of an acre — the amount of land that could be plowed in a day.) The landowner buys a tractor, and now the plowman can plow ten acres each day. Who should get the benefit — the owner who invested the money to buy the tractor, or the plowman who is now sitting and riding instead of walking behind the horse?

Now, the percentage of income paid in taxes has been reduced at all levels. In 1980, the top 5% were paying 26.85% of their income in taxes, now it is 20.68% — a 22.98% reduction. Meanwhile the bottom half has seen the percentage of their income paid in taxes reduced from 6.10% to 3.01% — a 50.7% reduction.

If the percentage INCOME paid in taxes had been reduced at the same rates across the board, the bottom half would now be paying no taxes at all. (I do not have the data available right now, but I have heard that the bottom 40% do indeed pay no federal income taxes at all, and actually have a negative tax rate.)

the proportion paid is probably the result, in part, of a greater increase in income earned among the wealthiest relative to the rest of the popluation. the increase in both is about 40% since 87. the wealthy are making an increasingly larger proportion of the money. and the percentage of income is what is important, that’s money that also goes into the economy. our economy hinges largely on spending among those with disposable income. why would you want to give the wealthy back what could go to giving poor folks like me an education.

Key point jack. One of the first things one learns in Economics 101 is that a sound thriving economy depends upon money in circulation. The wealthy do fuel that engine, as in many cases that is how they became wealthy.

Now, back to your percentages. Yes, as a percentage of INCOME, the tax reduction is a larger percentage of their income for those paying 21% as opposed to those paying 8%. That is to be expected — they pay a higher percentage to start with.

If we were to create tax breaks that reduce the percentage of income reduced equal — the top 5% go from paying 21% to 19% of their income, and the rest of us go from 8% to 6% — in very short order the top 5% would be paying ALL of the income tax.

That seems to be the trend. If you look at Table 6, you will see that in 1980, the top 5% paid 36.84% of the total income taxes. In 2006, it was 60.14%.

Now, I ask you, how high do you want that percentage to go?