I have this discussion with some of my friends, and I just cannot understand the "other" side!  Here's my take:

"Fairness is in the eye of the beholder", for sure.  Let's see, the 2 near extremes of the spectrum of fairness in taxes would be, on the one hand, everyone pay the same amount for the same average share of government services.  Like going to the movies.  I pay $7 per ticket, you pay $7 per ticket.  On the other extreme, we each pay a percentage of our income.  If you make $15 per hour, you pay 10% of your hourly wage, or $1.50.  If I make $250 per hour, I pay $25 for my ticket--not even close to the extreme--see below.  Same services per individual, but I pay more because I make more.  Obviously, neither of these is perfect, and even if attempted, there would be problems.  For example, on the low end for the percentage model, if you are unemployed and not making anything, it wouldn't be "fair" for that person to have to buy a ticket--poor thing, you should get a free pass.  Everyone has the "right" to go to the movies.  The rest of the system should pay you to go to the movies because that is good for the movie industry and stimulates the "movie economy."  Actually, as it is now, for lower income folks that DO pay taxes, it's around 10%, or 1.50 for a ticket.  But if you have been ambitious and aggressive with your education, sacrificing most of the way, studying for years when everyone else was just having fun, started a business or worked your way up, and are fortunate enough to make over $150K or so, let's still just go with $250 per hour, then you probably pay about 30% or $83 for your ticket of government services.  Compare that with the $1.50 the average person pays, and tell me how it's not "fair", and that I'm not paying enough when I'm pay 56x the average person AND a higher percentage of my total, for the same services?!  The old saying is that the folks who think that everything should be shared equally are the ones with the least to contribute.  Why bother making more if it's all going to be redistributed anyhow?  When I was in the military, for most optional things there were officer rates and enlisted rates for the same service.  I thought that was stupid, too.  You pay me more and then you take it back.  Do you think I'm stupid?  That's exactly what we're doing with taxes.  That's why so many people want to retire early.  The system is built so that after a certain point, one is just spinning wheels, going nowhere for all the extra work.  I realize that it's about half these numbers if you use $125 an hour which works out to Obama's magic $250K per year (less if single).

Now let's say that I am ambitious and want to build a legacy for my family.  I have already paid 35% of my entire income for my ticket of services.  I have 65% left to spend on the expenses everyone has--food, housing, etc. (except those on welfare getting a free ride).  I choose to save some of my money, instead of spending it all, and I put it in the stock market.  I've already paid taxes on it, but if I do my homework and get a little lucky, and I actually make money on my investment (sometimes I lose), why should I continue to have to pay the government part of this money for my ticket of services?  Why should not my neighbor pay extra ticket money (besides sales tax) on the money he or she chose to spend on a cruise or a car?  Why am I penalized for being thrifty and frugal, and probably even limiting the amount of money that I might someday get from social security (to which I also paid) on a "needs basis"??  Again, it is those with the least who want the others to pay more because they have more, as if it just dropped out of the sky.  How many of those people actually sacrificed to save their own money.  I know, if you ask, you will hear that they are saving all they can.  It is our individual liberty to make those decisions.  Some people who make more don't have to sacrifice as much.  They have worked and gotten lucky sometimes, and they CAN have their cake and eat it too.  Some folks on the lower scale live in more modest homes, forego nicer cars, less clothes, less steak and more hamburger, less or no cable, cellphones, vacations, campers, motorcycles, etc., and they save.  Some spend down to the last nickel and then underwater in debt.  How is it "fair" to redistribute the money in the economy unless the government decides precisely what every citizen is entitled to?  That seems to be where we are headed.  Fairness is not on the far left.  Fairness is somewhere in the middle.  Freedom includes the right to choose how one spends one's money.