I think the fundamental idea of fair taxation has three folds: 1. Effectiveness - this is where you're trying to maximize revenue 2. Morality - how much money s

I think the fundamental idea of fair taxation has three folds: 1. Effectiveness - this is where you're trying to maximize revenue 2. Morality - how much money should you be able to forcibly take from someone; 20% (1 day of work per week), 40% (2 days)... less? 3. Purpose - government traditionally served a purpose of providing defense and law and order, over time its spending converted to mainly being a welfare/social program/medical system. And now it's being argued that billionaires shouldn't exist and we need to take their money because of equality of outcome justifications. So arguments like trickle down failed, are asked failed at what? Do we think that the post war period was successful because of taxes? Even if taxes were high, I'd argue the same outcome would have happened - low skill labor faced increased competition from the market opening up around the world, which reduced the amount of people in poverty by a staggering amount and increased the standard of living with respect to manufactured goods for everyone (due to reduced labor costs everything got cheaper). If the taxes were higher would we have the tech industry like we do today? Would it be somewhere else? This type of analysis already has the conclusion in mind when the analysis starts.