Taxes and "Wealth Redistribution"

The whole thing with "wealth redistribution" or "fair taxes" is that no matter what, everyone knows that taxes need to be paid to keep the system we enjoy running smoothly. The question then becomes how much is "fair". Most people think fair should be for them to pay less. If everyone paid what they thought was fair, we would have horrible roads, the elderly would be out in the snow, and our military would be pathetic. Some favor a flat sales tax to replace the income tax as a panacea, but there are significant problems with this as well, not the least of which is that this is also a regressive tax structure. Nearly all first world countries have a "progressive" tax structure by which the more you make, the higher the rate of the tax. The idea behind this is that it takes a certain amount to live, a certain amount to live comfortably, and another amount to live REALLY comfortably. Economists assign value to these dollars in the form of what is called "marginal utility". The concept is that one hundred dollars is much more important to someone making 20K a year than to someone making 200K a year. Therefore, even though the percentage is higher in terms of the income tax, the goal for many is to have roughly the same contribution when adjusted for the marginal utility of that money. You don't want to "punish" success, but you also need to make sure that you are giving the most opportunity to stay in the middle class and not slip under the poverty line for anyone that is employed.

Yes, there are some people that are not elderly or disabled that are on welfare. About 1% of the total federal budget is spent on this, which is a large amount in sheer dollars, but compared to many other line items, it's tiny, and the percentage has been trending lower since welfare reform 14 years ago. There is also Social Security, Medicaid, and other programs that exist to help various people that are elderly or sick. Many of these programs work in a way that the people that get the benefits paid into them during their working years. However, these programs are getting stretched due to longer life expectancies. Eventually I think the retirement age will have to be moved up. It won't be popular, but demographics will demand it.

Now, back to "wealth redistribution". This has become in the last couple decades a Republican code phrase for "the wealthy should pay lower taxes". Then once they are proposed to be cut for the wealthy, it is argued who then should pay more to make up for the shortfall, since even if the economy is stimulated by the cuts, which may or may not happen, it is unlikely to make up for the whole difference, especially in today's conditions. Conservatives will often say that the budget should be cut. There is always "waste" somewhere that can be targeted, but when you are in as big a hole as we are now, there isn't enough waste that exists to make up that kind of deficit. We generally don't want to cut the military of course, since that's vital, and not infrastructure, which we need for commerce to run smoothly, but then most of what you are left with are programs for the young, the elderly, or the sick, and remember only about one percent is really "welfare" as you and I would think of it (able to work but out of work, and/or looking for work). So, one way or another, "wealth redistribution" is a request to re-balance taxes and spending so that those that are already well off will take home more, and those that are retired, sick, or less well off will pay more and/or receive fewer services. This policy then hopes and assumes the rich will use this money to expand businesses instead of taking an extra trip to the Carribbean or buy a yacht. This is what people call "trickle down economics".

So, who should pay what in your opinion, why is it fair, and if you would pay less, who should pay more or receive less government help?