> Can someone else offer a better definition of what fair means? And why I might be wrong?
Many!
There are 2 very different spheres of discussion the value and effects of taxation: morality, and economics.
From a moral standpoint, it depends on which system you abide to. In utilitarian terms, the case for higher income to the rich would be that the rich would suffer the loss of income a lot less than a poor man: someone with 1000 dollars would greatly suffer losing 500, but somone with 10 million, would not suffer for 50,000.
You could argue in utilitarian terms that taxation could go very harsh in this regard, but then you know there will be some negative consequences (people leaving, etc) which can make it complicated.
In libertarian terms, self-posession and private property is paramount. What you have is yours, and whoever takes it is committing an act of robbery and violence. Any tax is an application of force, so not only progressive taxes are bad, any tax is bad. There shouldn't be taxes, they should be voluntary.
It is deontological to think that the taxes which are levied on richer people are a must because of the duty the rich have to the poor. A layman could think it is his duty to remove as much from the rich in help of the poor, even with the application of force.
To which system you subscribe, you will have a different opinion of the matter, but may I add that each person is a part each system and what we are the most is inconsistent.
In terms of economics, which of the above moral systems, utilitarians would care the most, you will find disagreement. There is a case that the rich paying more taxes ends up meaning less investment, which is what increases productivity and overall wealth, also known as supply-side or "trickle-down" economics. On the other side, you have increasing government spending to perpetuate and increase demand and produce growth. (keynesian economics).
Would government spending reduce or increase poverty? would it help or damage the economy?
Is an economist team thinking up this tax? or is it a group of politicians fattening their budget? It's almost certainly the latter.
Many!
There are 2 very different spheres of discussion the value and effects of taxation: morality, and economics.
From a moral standpoint, it depends on which system you abide to. In utilitarian terms, the case for higher income to the rich would be that the rich would suffer the loss of income a lot less than a poor man: someone with 1000 dollars would greatly suffer losing 500, but somone with 10 million, would not suffer for 50,000. You could argue in utilitarian terms that taxation could go very harsh in this regard, but then you know there will be some negative consequences (people leaving, etc) which can make it complicated.
In libertarian terms, self-posession and private property is paramount. What you have is yours, and whoever takes it is committing an act of robbery and violence. Any tax is an application of force, so not only progressive taxes are bad, any tax is bad. There shouldn't be taxes, they should be voluntary.
It is deontological to think that the taxes which are levied on richer people are a must because of the duty the rich have to the poor. A layman could think it is his duty to remove as much from the rich in help of the poor, even with the application of force.
To which system you subscribe, you will have a different opinion of the matter, but may I add that each person is a part each system and what we are the most is inconsistent.
In terms of economics, which of the above moral systems, utilitarians would care the most, you will find disagreement. There is a case that the rich paying more taxes ends up meaning less investment, which is what increases productivity and overall wealth, also known as supply-side or "trickle-down" economics. On the other side, you have increasing government spending to perpetuate and increase demand and produce growth. (keynesian economics).
Would government spending reduce or increase poverty? would it help or damage the economy?
Is an economist team thinking up this tax? or is it a group of politicians fattening their budget? It's almost certainly the latter.