Do you not recognize that in the absence of government Bill Gates would have a small portion of what he has now.And our combined wealth as a nation would be far less so that I would be much poorer. In fact, I would be still be preparing income tax returns using a service a bureau and my clients would be paying much higher fees.
Do you not recognize that in the absense of taxes we would have a larger portion of what we have now ?
Government costs money. Someone must pay. The proper allocation of who pays is subject to debate. The allegory starting this thread implies that it is somehow obvious that the rich pay too much (or, at least enough). My original point, which is quite objective, is that even if you assume that income is the appropriate basis for all taxes, knowing that a particular group pays 40% of the taxes is not sufficient information to determine whether that group deserves 40% of a tax cut until you determine the portion of income they receive. If they receive 35%, they may deserve more than 40% back; if they earn 60% of the income, they are entitled to less than 40% back.
Is there something about my above clarification that you disagree with it? If so, what, specifically, and why?