Unjust Deserts - Gar Alperovitz & Lew Daly

The problem is that people are going out of their way to make it unfair. While middle class families are paying around 30% income tax, the uber-rich are paying 10 to 15%. The rich also spend money on politicians that reduce public spending, resulting in fewer educational and employment opportunities for the middle class. The rich spend money on politicians that bust unions, leading directly to the depression of middle class incomes and putting more money in the pockets of the the people who own the companies.

My initial question is how can we have fair profits while keeping incentives in place to encourage innovation?Also, we do put expiration dates on copyrights and patents. However, I have heard that loopholes and questionable justifications have taken the teeth out of this process. If so, are there reforms that need to be put in place?

Slashing money for middle class education while subsidizing Exxon and corporate farms. Slashing capital gains taxes while claiming that the government is to poor to supply a single person with 20 dollars in food stamps. Busting unions in Republican controlled states.Trickle down economics in itself is perhaps the most immoral position to take. From the billionaires themselves. Romney admitted that he was taxed around 15% while having an 8 figure salary (partially funded by sending US jobs overseas in order to make more money). Warren Buffett wrote a nice piece in the NY Times where he details his 18% tax rate, and how people in his office pay nearly twice that amount as a percentage of income.Opinion | Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - The New York TimesIf the uber-rich are paying as much or more than the middle class, then why are they fighting so hard against the Buffett Rule? They even go as far as calling it class warfare, as if no one has a sense of irony.

The first proposal is interesting (80K upon reaching adulthood). However, human nature may foil the plan. We have a tendency to ignore long term gains for short term rewards. I can picture 18 year old guys buying a sports car instead of getting an education, starting a business, or investing in a house for long term stability. Still interesting, though.The second proposal is something that should be enacted. Currently, families with wealth are able to snowball their wealth to ever larger sums due to a lack of inheritance tax and a low tax on capital gains. The heart of the economy is consumer spending, and the more money that moves from the middle class to the fewer and fewer people at the top, the less money there is in consumer spending. That hurts everyone. I think you already understand why this is a problem, but for those who may not understand the concept . . . A man with 10 million dollars will buy 1 toaster. Split up that 10 million to 100 other people and they will buy 100 toasters. This is probably a little far off from the topic, but still an important economic prinicple (at least according to my limited understanding of economics). Pharmaceutical drugs may serve as a decent model. The patent is 20 years, but exclusivity is shorter, as little as 5 or 7 years. This allows for generic drugs after exclusivity runs out to keep costs down. This FAQ might be of interest to some:Frequently Asked Questions on Patents and Exclusivity | FDA