The rich do in fact spend a whole lot more than the poor or the middle class. The problem lies in the fact that they spend less as a proportion of their income. Therefore, the Result of the fair tax policy is a tax decrease on the rich, and a tax increase on the middle class.

As for logic, I don’t think there are many good logical reasons one way or the other. It may be that in theory, the recipients of benefits should be the ones to pay more of the costs. But calculating those costs and benefits turns out to be very tricky. Further, as the rich receive more benefits from the government, they should pay more.

Unfortunately, that tax logic may work very well for road construction and fishing licenses, but it doesn’t really hold up well for other areas. For example, providing medical treatment to other people is not in my self-interest by any stretch of the imagination. I caution Democrats, including you, Ben, from saying that it is. Instead, we Democrats posit that providing for our brothers and sisters is a religious duty. (Secular Democrats and Libertarians may wish to call this Basic Human Decency if the r-word makes them squeamish, if Libertarians do in fact believe in Basic Human Decency). We don’t do these things because it’s logical. We do them because they’re right.

The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent. Not only are these data . . . the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen . . . point, in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went . . .

the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all incomes in 2005, they now pay nearly 40 percent of all taxes. In 1980, before the Reagan . . . tax-cut revolution was launched, the top 1 percent earned 8.5 percent of all income and paid 19.1 percent of all taxes. So while the rich are . . . the lion’s share of the taxes. As others have pointed out, . . .

As for increasing revenue, I don’t see the need. Why is it that the left never has enough? If you want to “do good”, why not start with your own money or volunteer your time. Stop asking for my money to make yourself feel better. Needs are endless, resources are limited; go make some choices.

More generally, there’s no evidence anywhere that the theoretically valid Laffer curve applies at current American (or European, for that matter) tax rates.

This is true for you and me, but not at all true for the vast majority of capital gains:

In any event, why does investing post-tax income mean that all subsequent gains from that income should be tax-free? I mean, obviously, lower taxes are better, but we need to pay for things, and that money has to come from somewhere.

And yes, I do give a crap about “fair”.

Oh, wait — since the conservative movement was neo’d, it is. Never mind.

Yeah, it’s an attack.

Where do people get the money they invest in the stock market? In almost every case it is from the job, and they are investing money they were already taxed on.

The way we increase revenue is to promote tax policies which encourage economic activity; economic activity creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll note the surge in tax revenue since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. When you raise taxes on people economic activity slows down.

We need to look at this situation with logic and facts, not with emotional terms like “most fair”. Who gives a crap about “fair” when their job moves to mexico because businesses can make greater profits there? Who gives a crap about “fair” when the company re-locates to a state with a lower tax rate? Why not look at the states which have seen the greatest increase in new jobs and new companies–relocations, etc…–you’ll also see that these are the states with the most favorable tax climates.

And here’s one more novel idea: if government needs more money to run a given program, why not just cut spending in another area? Everytime you raise taxes, you take a job from a poor person.

Kudlow’s “argument” about the stock market not liking Obama, on the other hand, is just ludicrous.

Why not include the whole quote and follow that by refuting the ideas?

“This idea of rewarding work instead of wealth is just insane. Capital needs labor and labor needs capital. You can’t create a new job without a thriving business. But if corporate and investment taxes are going up, how will these businesses be funded? And attacking corporations that work partly overseas is pure protectionism and isolationism. It’s as bad as Obama’s antipathy towards trade deals with South Korea and Colombia, as well as his Carter-like diplomatic initiatives toward Iran and other rogue states.”

The idea here is sound and true: poor people don’t create jobs, businesses and rich people do. If we want to promote new businesses and more jobs, tax cuts and decreased regulation are the keys. Did you ever wonder why businesses leave for foriegn shores?