I never said they weren't deserving, not sure why that was your take away.
In my example that partner is benefiting more from the system, in that case, the education of the employees. So it seems fair to me that people who get more out of the system contribute more.
The undeserving part comes from the tone of your post. Where it seems like the owners are making profit at the expense of their workers, with the implication that they are doing nothing to get the 200% profit they are charging. Maybe you aren't thinking you mean that, but it comes across that way.
They are not benefiting more from 'the system' whatever that means. They are benefiting more from the fact that they are able to leverage other people's labor in a way their employees did not choose to do for themselves. For whatever reason that is.
Again, they are contributing more with a flat tax. You don't want them to contribute more, you want them to contribute disproportionately more.
The reason to tax to support infrastructure is because we all benefit from it's use and funding is required to build and maintain the roads. And yes, I agree with your last part just don't know why a massive installation and maintenance of a toll system is preferential to how we do it now.
It was just an example to illustrate that companies benefit more than employees. It just doesn't make sense to spend the money on installation, maintenance, administration, etc. when the way we do it works fine. I don't even see the benefit.
The point of the post is what is fair. What is fair is to tax the road and some similar infrastructures based on usage. Does a road deteriorate from lack of use? I mean, yes, it still has to be maintained a bit if not a single car drives on it. But obviously higher usage increases this.
I am not saying that this is better than what we have now. It is purely an argument from fairness. Is it 'fair' that a millionaire widow who cannot drive anymore has to pay for roads that she doesn't have the ability to use? She has no ability to derive benefit from the roads for herself, unless we get very abstract and argue that her kids could drive to her and visit her or something like that.
I'm not suggesting we increase the tax rates. It sounds like you want to lower from current levels for top earners, and that's what I am saying is a bad idea.
That's fine if you don't want to increase tax rates, I don't either.
The argument we generally hear is that we should increase the higher tax rates to make the rich pay their 'fair share', the obvious counter argument is how that is not fair. I don't think the current tax brackets are too bad. Far from a socialist system. But I am worried that the very existence of a progressive tax system will get worse in the future. It's not a slippery slope to think that the masses will call for higher taxes on the higher earners.
Ok, your logic who has more to lose due to fire? My modest house is a pittance compared to their mansion or factory - therefore they should pay more
Potentially losing more due to a fire has no effect on if they should pay more. Everyone equally derives the passive benefit of a fire department.
That huge military budget protecting us from invasion or serving interest of our corporations? - ok they should pay more.
The military doesn't work for the corporations.
