That wasn't my impression. I thought the allegory was intended to answer the question about why when lowering the taxes the rich should get a larger share of the refund. It was my impression that rather than arguing that point your posts were intended to switch the subject to one that you felt more comfortable arguing.
My original point, which is quite objective, is that even if you assume that income is the appropriate basis for all taxes, knowing that a particular group pays 40% of the taxes is not sufficient information to determine whether that group deserves 40% of a tax cut until you determine the portion of income they receive.
The statement you fashioned uses the word "deserves". As such it is an undefined term and can mean different things to different people. It would be nice if you provided a definition. If you in fact wish to imply that we should endeavor to place a use tax on those whose who use the various services that the government provides I would be willing to listen to that. But in as much as the subject of this thread is lowering a tax based on incomes and not services you would be mixing one form of tax to justify another form. This is a form of straw man argument. If you wanted to be true to your analysis and expand the scope to look at taxes based on government use of services you would and must take a full picture of it. Lets factor in the propery taxes, excise taxes, road use, UC payroll tax, sales tax, telephone taxes, etc that both Microsof and its customers pays. Lets also look at the expenses and see what parts of the budget is a service provided to Gates that isn;t provided to the poor. Does Gate's A$$ get better protected by the military than mine ? Does Gates take a larger share of social welfare than the poor ?
If they receive 35%, they may deserve more than 40% back; if they earn 60% of the income, they are entitled to less than 40% back.
("deserve ?")I first disagree that you have established your premise that "they" get more from government just because they are wealthy. Further, as stated you are mixing the stated purposes of taxes and if you truly want to do a asset vs. liability analysis you need to take in the entire picture not just the narrow view that suits your point. Third, even assuming all the numbers ran your way the answer to the question of how to rebate an income tax fairly is still the same. It should be in proportion to the amounts originally taxed. Anything else is a shift of the tax burden without justification. Taking in the undefined concept "deserve" is just class envy politics.
Let me try to simplify. If you and I buy a $10 pie, I pay 60% and you pay 40%. Now we agree that everybody should theoretically pay the same percent of income. I earn $70 you earn $30. Currently, therefore, I pay 60% but should be paying 70%. Now, a $1 discount is given by the restaurant on the $10 pie. The allegory argues that simply because I pay 60%, I'm entitled to 60 cents of the $1 discount. According to our respective earnings, however, I should ultimately pay 70% of the $9 or $6.30. Therefore, even if you get the entire discount, I am still underpaying. This is purely mathematical. There is no particular political philosophy expressed. To put it another way, the allegory assumes the current tax burden is exactly correct. Only then, should a proportionate refund be given.
Now as a whole other concept, the cost of anything should be borne by those who benefit from it. Here's where a political aspect comes in. You assume that the brighest richest, most powerful members of society get the shaft in our society. (e.g. it's unfair that Gates pays more for the roads). I don't think this analysis passes even the most casual of "smell tests". Common sense should tell you that the smartest, richest, and most powerful would see to it that they not be taken advantage of.