Sounds like you advocate a flat tax. That's funny, seeing as how the current tax rates are progressive. A change to a flat tax would be a tax cut for the wealthy, and most likely an increase for the poor (unless we also reduced ways to get tax credits). I think you're trying to argue for the opposite, though -- a more progressive tax rate -- and all the while talking about increasing taxes in the name of "fairness."

Granted, the wealthy currently find ways to get tax breaks by making charitable contributions and the like, so their effective tax rate is probably a good bit less than the nominal. But if they're getting tax cuts by being charitable, I say good for them. I'm sure the charities have a lower overhead for doing good with the money than the federal government.

If we want to be more "fair," how about we just prosecute the crooked people at the top? And fine them heavily, too? But as long as he plays by the rules, what's wrong with a man being wealthy? He pays a greater portion of his income out to taxes and charitable contributions than the non-wealthy men. He pays property and capital gains taxes in large amounts, as well. I must say that that's more than fair to the non-wealthy. And I can't in good conscience ask them to continue paying more and more just because I want to pay less.