We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I would suggest fair be defined not as total dollars paid, but as a percentage of their income compared to others.
Clearly the top 5000 pay more and the Mayor cannot afford to lose any of them, but as a percentage of their income is their tax burden more or less than those that actually pay taxes? Context is sorely needed here!
A fairer tax is a flater tax shared by all however the percentages work out.
I am a longstanding proponent of a flat tax and I am, therefore, compelled to follow up on Pbop's reference. Everyone has skin in the game with a flat tax. A vigilant citizen is the only chance for good government. ___________________________________
Risk management also provides another perspective.
The more the revenues of a city, state or nation are concentrated with a small group, the more the system is placed at risk. Anyone who has managed a business knows this.
There is irony in the situation today. If governments were smart, the bureaucrats would be looking for ways to protect high income jobs. Instead, the bureaucrats use populist rhetoric and whip up the lazy and uninformed in the language of class warfare.
The net result will be lower incomes, lower tax revenues and bigger deficits. My bet is that the CBO projection of $9.3 trillion in incremental debt is understated by 50% or more if Obama is allowed to pass this irresponsible and immoral budget.