I don't believe there is a problem with paying a "fair share." 0% income tax was the norm in the 19th century and we survived just fine.
The problem is "do the rich contribute their fair share?" Once tax cuts are given to individuals or corporations, there is no guarantee this money will be recycled into the middle-class economy.
Tax cut -> Investments -> Dividends/Losses -> Investments
None of this "trickles down" to the common man working at Starbuck's or installing a toilette in someone's home. They might see a bit of extra work, but for someone of their wage bracket, that equals a few hundred dollars vs. the thousands or millions a single rich person gains from tax benefits.
If there are going to be tax cuts or a lowering of the tax burden, they should be dependent upon payroll increase. If a qualified payroll expense can be proven (new hires only; 'bonuses' for existing employees at managerial level and above are not qualifying expenses), then a tax deduction is granted at the end of the year. If not, then this money is simply being hoarded away and impacts the general well-being of the economy.
People will get their tax break, the middle class (the largest portion of the "consumer" population) grows and everybody wins. As it sits, however, the money is just getting tucked away into investment funds, CDs, off-short accounts, the stock market, precious metals: Things other wealthy people profit from. Walk up to an RN or a manager at Home Depot and ask what their investment porfolio looks like. Unless they're 50+ years of age, it's often a paycheck-to-paycheck situation.
