Here's to Tax 3.0. If you run on that platform, you have my vote. It really does need to be dismantled. When a post-grad doesn't have a prayer of doing their own taxes with the form provided, something is terribly wrong. Thank God TurboTax is available to this simpleton.

Low income earners do pay sales, property taxes, social security, cigarette taxes, and the most evil of all, IMHO, that dreaded voluntary tax they seem so eager to pay, the Lottery.
Interesting that with these "massive tax cuts" Federal Income Tax revenue has remained flat, as a percentage of GDP, at about 18% over those 30 years. So, evidently, tax cuts have not affected Federal Income Tax revenue. (Admittedly, a strange concept) As you say, the left sees the rich as milking the poor, I guess by selling them commodities they want, or need, at prices they think are fair. I just wish American manufacturers could produce these commodities, but in our litigating/regulating/meager benefit society, we are unable to compete on a global scale. As it turns out, the "meager benefits" promised, say Medicare for example, (which in 2008 was 20% of the ENTIRE federal budget) aren't so meager and are bankrupting in and of themselves. I'm all for shared sacrifice. I'll gladly pay more taxes if I see meaningful reform of entitlement programs. That's real compromise.

The example of "fair share" could just as easily been about receiving medical care, or any other service that the government provided. So, I think the logic holds. A "fair share" of the funding of Medicare would be everyone paying the same amount, assuming everyone gets an equal share of the benefit, which they currently do when they qualify. I'm not sure that an individual "benefits more from society" if they are rich. Maybe I missed the logic in that. Maybe you mean that they benefit more from society wanting the products/services they provide, the circumstance that makes most of the rich, rich, or just that they can purchase or consume more of what society has to offer?
The place to start with increasing government revenues is reforming the IRS and its complexity. And yes, doing away with some ridiculous deductions allowed, say the deduction on the mortgage of a second home. Increasing taxes does little to make businesses more honest, and we all know major deception occurred in the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Enough greed to go around the table there though, from home buyers/mortgage companies/banks/insurers/.....
It's a simple fact, already pointed out in this thread, that increased tax revenue will only put a dent in the deficit crisis and only serious spending cuts can get us out. Since entitlement programs represent the bulk of Federal spending, they have to be on the table to make meaningful budget improvement.

Much is said about a "fair share." By whose measure is a "fair share?" If 3 people are in a room, not knowing their individual assets and they want to buy a $30 item, isn't a fair share $10 a piece? Then 2 of them find that the 3rd is worth 5 times as much as they are, so suddenly a "fair share" is different. They tell the 3rd "your fair share is 5 times what we should pay. No, on second thought, a fair share would be...we pay nothing and you should buy the item and give us some."
A "fair share" would be everybody paying the same amount. Since that's not possible a "fair share" turns into an appropriation that has nothing to do with being "fair." "Each according to his means," was a suggestion, not a mandate.

Amazing to see the number of super wealthy that are pledging to spend the majority of their fortune on philanthropy.....http://givingpledge.org/#enter
You can make a personal donation to pay off the US National Debt, if you so desire.....http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/11/10/n_mos_debt.cnnmoney/

Is one's political philosophy an inner "moral code" or is it a function of where you sit on the economic ladder? Is it coincidence that the wealthy are conservative and largely Republican and the poor are largely liberal and Democratic? If you reversed the economic standing of a group of one versus the other, would that change their political view? Do the poor who win lotteries usually go a spending spree or immediately set about philanthropy and working for social justice? How far down the economic ladder does entitlement stop? If we are a truly a world community, should the US citizen living at the poverty level give up their cell phone so that a child can eat in Rwanda? After all, isn't that person at the US poverty level still earning in the top 10% of world income earners? Isn't that person uber-rich to the child in Rwanda? The group on the bottom will always look up at the next class above and think they're "greedy" for their excesses, however modest they may be. In the end, the world economy is driven by individuals pursuing their personal and separate interests. To paraphrase historian Will Durant on what lessons we learn from history, concerning economics, "freedom and equality are sworn enemies.......the greater the freedom, the greater the economic disparity in the classes, until it creates such tension that wealth is redistributed by legislation, or poverty is redistributed by revolution."

Wow.

"poor people" pay no taxes in the US. If the bottom 50% of US income earners pay no federal income tax, how are the "poor" burdened with an excessive tax load? True that the top 10% of wage earners in the US take in slightly less than 50% of gross income, and pay about 70% of federal income taxes. So, the real argument is not that the rich aren't paying the taxes, they are, it's that the rich are rich, damn them.

It's rampant in politics, from all sides. I wish people would consider the context of a statement and report it truthfully. "I only hear what I want to hear," is intellectual dishonesty. Although he may have done it in some speech/debate, I have never heard Romney speak to the legal issue of corporate personhood. What he has said in Iowa is absolutely, undeniably correct........you increase taxes on corporations, it affects someone's paycheck, either an employee/owner, or the cost of the goods/services provided by the corporation, and therefore the consumer. Without fundamental change in the ridiculous recommendations of compensation committees of large corporations (regarding salaries for high level management), the extra cost will be deflected downstream to lower grade employees, or consumers like you and I. High level management is insulated from decreases in revenue from increased corporate taxes. If they do sense a threat, they'll just move their headquarters overseas to a more favorite tax environment. Ask Bono and U2 how that works.

A voice of reason.

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

Lol. Yep, the fact that corporations are comprised of people, which is what he said, is rather stale, obvious, and uninteresting. Corporate personhood is MUCH more interesting a topic.

Thanks Eric. Hope all has been well with you. Some good people here. Now I'll get to inject some conservatism back into these Sift debates, lol. Just be glad I'm not a nut-case tea-bagger.
Cheers!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Welcome back!

Thanks for recent promote of fishing scene. I have a day off tomorrow. Can you guess what I'm doing? Hook, line and sinker.

Distorted perception of one's body or appearance, as in anorexia, is a mental illness. A rational person would look at the result of such a thing and know it was bad. Obviously, this became a compulsion with this poor woman. How is it vain to make yourself hideous? Show some compassion for the mentally ill.