You want the rich to "pay their fair share", but won't define what it is. You want them to pay more than they do now, but won't even hint at how much more.
As I said, it's not a solid number but depends upon a host of economic factors I don't want to take the time to discuss in length here.
Furthermore, you haven't shown how taking more from the "rich" will help the economy, especially since those people are generally the ones who create and provide the jobs in the first place.
For every tax dollar collected from the rich, you reduce the tax by the same amount for the lower (and possibly middle) class. That's how it helps the economy - the lower and middle classes have more of their money to spend. Since consumer spending makes the economy go, this should help things at least somewhat.
You seem to assume, based on the bulk of your posts, that there is only one solution to help the needy - government programs. That simply isn't true.
You're assuming that I assume this when it isn't the case at all. Please stop trying to read things into my posts that I don't actually say, because you'll be wrong when you do.
I'm aware there are other ways to help the needy, but I see the absolute benefit of government programs to do it as well.
Lastly, you fail to demonstrate that government has any moral authority to coerce anyone to help their neighbor.
The government helps people itself. It doesn't need to coerce anyone to do it (though they should do it if they consider themselves to be any kind of decent human being).
As for constitutionally necessary programs, I believe the rich should pay more of the burden (they do already). Those at the bottom should pay less (they already pay next to nothing).
Wow. I'm shocked at how easily you generalize the situation.
The rich don't usually pay more than the rest of society. They use tax loop holes, deductions, hiding money offshore or other places, and a host of strategies to pay the same or even lower rates than those who make much less. Look at Mitt Romney's 14 percent rate, lower than that of many middle class Americans, and you can see that the rich most certainly DO NOT pay more than others.
As for saying "they already pay next to nothing" for the lower class, this is absolutely FALSE. If you have a job which makes, say, $20,000 per year, someone is in the lower 20 percent of income earners in the country. It may be a full time job with benefits but just doesn't pay as much. Yet that person will still be slated to pay far more than "next to nothing" in income taxes. The exact number will be specific to the person's situation, but it won't be anywhere close to nothing, and in some cases may actually exceed the 14 percent Romney pays, which is absolutely ridiculous.
What percentage of wealthy individuals (as defined by our fearless leaders) are thos who did not work for it? What percentage don't "deserve it"? Why wouldn't they "deserve it"?
I would say a large percentage of the wealthy do not work for it or earn it. A specific percentage would require an extensive study, and even then might not be able to be obtained.
As for why people wouldn't deserve it, in my opinion you need to be responsible with money to deserve to have it. While you should be able to spend a certain portion on yourself, an individual only needs so much money to live and be comfortable. I'm not sure what the exact amount would be, but I do know that when I see people with ridiculous mansions, tons of sports cars, etc they do not deserve that money in my opinion because they're spending it selfishly. I sit and imagine how many horrible diseases could be cured or how many people could be fed or housed or whatever if only those with that money spent it on the good of everyone instead of on selfish things they don't need.
By the way, the paragraph directly above is my personal opinion and is not up for debate. I will not change how I feel on that so you'll be wasting your time anyway.
They are free to ignore those in need if they wish. [Hint: a vast majority of those don't wish to ignore the needy].
Actually, they do largely ignore the needy. Most of them give a small amount (relative to the amount they have) and use it to tell themselves how great they are.
As I said above, if you have a huge house and sports cars and other fancy things, you should be giving a lot more to help others and spending a lot less on those things.
A flat tax on all earnings (no loopholes) would be an example of how a THINKING preference would handle taxes.
A flat tax favors the wealthy unless it's a flat percentage based tax, because if the tax is say $1000, a guy with $5 million is paying far less percentage wise than someone who only has $100,000. That's just simple mathematics.
A graduated tax system where the rich pay proportionately more would be an example of how a FEELING preference would handle taxes.
I can't disagree with this more.
It's a logical deduction that those who earn more should pay more. That's what income taxes are all about. There is no "feeling" involved at all - it's pure, simple logic.
It's simple: Those who make more pay more. Those who make less pay less. All based on logic. No feeling. That's as simple as I can put it to you. If you don't get it from that, you simply don't understand logic at all.