fair=equal in this context and 17% is equal when applied to EVERYONE.
I do not agree that mathematical equality is the definition of fairness in this sense.
the poor? **** the poor, almost HALF of the american people pay NO TAXES AT ALL
If there were a flat tax, they would, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
THAT isnt fair.
I do not know how much money would be generated in tax revenue by taxing everyone. I presume more than is presently taken in, but how much more, I do not know. And I wonder at the effect it would have on our economy if the lowest economic group were suddenly unable to buy food or pay rent.
how is it fair to charge some NONE and some 50%?
the ONLY reason is "because they can afford it"
and that simply doesnt justify robbery in my book and more than "she was asking for it" jusitfies rape.
I don't see taxation as 'robbery'. We certainly have the means, as a society, to end taxation. We can vote it out of existence, amendments and all. Not something robbers usually put up with.
And 'because we can afford it' is often the answer I give when asked to donate to charity, or when my family wants to see a movie or go out to eat - or decide NOT to donate, see the movie, or go out to eat if the answer is that we cannot afford it. Is it not also a valid question to ask when taxing our citizens to pay for government services?
It would seem so under the current scheme, because we have a tiered tax system based on income now. So it would appear that yes, we *do* think it is fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor, at least on paper, and at least until we get all the deductions, breaks, shelters, and other methods of evading taxes legally figured in.