“There is no justification for high earners to be paying more in raw dollars. None.”
Since there is way to calculate better than by percentage, this is the only fair method that doesn’t give anyone a free ride. And no, there is absolutely nothing about class warfare involved. If the guy making a weekly check and just scraping by pays ten percent, or a guy making a million bucks pays ten percent, the corresponding totals will be the same ten percent, no matter how much you try to change it. If you are suggesting an inverse progressive tax, which it sounds like you are, THAT would be class warfare.
Mixing percentages with “raw dollars” is an old tax dodger trick that just doesn’t work in the world of math. Unless you are totally inept at using your money, the same percentage will have the same impact. Cost of doing business is fixed and that is a good thing. isn’t that why there are no jobs and the economy is locked up? Not knowing what the bite is going to be is never good.
I would gladly pay a percentage of my income to the common welfare. And remember, that not everyone is rich from year to year. Some of us make a lot one year and less the next. Some have it from the beginning and some grow it. With a fixed percentage it will also rise and fall, but the percentage will not change. Which is equitable.
The country has overhead. If we don’t get a grip on it we will lose the country. A few points of my income isn’t worth that. A fixed rate would make the economy boom.
There certainly is a better way than percentages: Flat AMOUNT per person.
A persons’s income has nothing to do with their “fair share”.
“Impacts on the individual” have no logical merit in paying one’s portion of the government load. You are once again, too concerned with how much the “rich guy” gets to keep.