sorry folks, but i will bash both sides of the isle here.
if the only function of govt were to pave a road, and they need money to pave the road...
lets say my car does $200 worth of damage to the road each year.
too many republicans have that deficits don't matter mentality. they don't want to pay for the road. they want their grandkids to pay for the road. honestly this annoys me to no end. they want govt to do things but don't want to pay for it.
too many libs would want my brother (who earns a very healthy paycheck) to pay maybe 10 grand for his fair share of road tax. (even tho his car only does 200 bucks of damage to the road each year). of course that extra money will mostly go to other "pork", or things their lobbyist can make money on. and libs are naive enough to think this makes for a better society.
will we ever be able to get to a place where we all agree to pay the 200 bucks for our own use of the road?
There are plusses and minuses to a progressive tax structure. I grudgingly admit it is a necassary evil. If you inflict 200 wear and tear on the road, etc, and make 20k, you probably can't pay your share for the road and all other government services. The guy making 200k can pick up some of the slack. I don't have a huge problem with that. With a reasonable economy and some effort, that guy making 20K now can eventually end up being one of the guys making 200k and offset some of the benefits he has recieved on the way.
But the answer to the question "What is the fair share". Most of the people advocating for fair share, claiming the rich don't pay it, generally have no idea how much the "rich" pay. The top 1% pay about 40+% of all income tax recieved by the treasury. The top 10% pay about 72+% and the bottom 50%, when factoring earned income tax credit, pay little to none, some getting more back than they pay. If that's unfair, I'd say it unfair on the side of the top 10%.
But the advocates only answer to what's fair is "More than they pay now".
As far as deficits, I've read good arguments that holding spending increases at or below inflation would make serious inroads into the national debt within 20 years. But that's a whole nuther discussion. We have an elephant to eat and can't do it in one bite.
Finally, I agree with Reagan. The problem is not that we are taxed too little, the problem is that the government spends too much.