Let’s Talk About Taxes, What’s Fair?

There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. For any system of taxation you can contrive, I (or another) can show how it's "unfair" to some person or group. Therefore, I never discuss taxes in the context of fair/unfair (e.g. "fair-share"). There simply is no such thing, so it's a futile discussion.

The only useful context for discussion taxation is workability. Specifically, a workable taxation system is one that provides sufficient revenue to provide the agreed upon services, while minimizing the impact/burden on each individual.

By impact/burden, I mean it the effect on the ability of the individual to live with the "socially agreed upon" minimal necessities of life IN THAT SOCIETY, AND minimizing the impact/limit on his ability to better his situation via education, work, and/or investment.

Thus, if a person makes at or less than the minimum required for necessities in a society, ANY taxes on him are a very heavy burden, even "undue" burden. For someone who makes just a small amount more than minimum, taxes are a heavy burden as they limit his ability to better his circumstances, therefore, they should be as light as feasible, but he can reasonably be expected to pay some taxes. The greater the difference between a person's income, and the minimum necessary in that society, the lesser the impact taxes will have on his ability to improve his circumstances.

This is the fundamental principle for which progressive taxation is the system with the lowest impact/burden. Now, some will try to claim it's unfair to those who earn the most, but as Ii said, "fair" isn't a useful context for discussing taxation. However, because it's very difficult for human beings to remove "fair/unfair" from their context for consideration, I will address a couple items in the context of what is fair/unfair:

1. It should never be considered "fair", or "just" to tax more than 50% of what a person earns (after deducting the minimum required to live in that society). That is, taking more than half of a person's "discretionary" or "disposable" income as taxation should be avoided unless it's simply not possible to operate an agreed upon govt using less (e.g. it might be necessary to have a higher tax during times of war or national emergency, and then must be for as short a time as practical).
2. To reduce a person's ability to afford luxuries is less of a burden than reducing his ability to improve his circumstance. Is it not more of a burden to take 10% from a person who has $1000 above the "minimum necessary", than taking 20% from a person with 100,000 above the minimum?
3. Those who earn more, do so, not solely of their own labor, but in part by the freedoms afforded by the society in which they earned it, thus those who "earn" the most, have also benefited the most from the society. Is it not appropriate that those who benefit more, pay a greater share to continue the society that enables them to earn those amounts?