The Bush tax cuts are 10 years in. Can we agree that they did not have the intended consequence and face reality?

Basic economics says that you have to pay for the resources you use to make money.

Here is a logic stream to illustrate:

• Business in America costs money in infrastructure.

• Business/Corporations are making profits.

• Wealthy people own corporations.

• Wealthy people should pay more taxes rather than receive greater tax cuts.

There are some words for people who make money without paying for their cost of doing business:

Madoff, grifter, mooch, bum, Ponzi, stiff, con man, fraud

The middle class in America does not have deep pockets, but they also are not using extravagant resources.  They should pay less, a fair share, but less.

The people using the most resources are making the most money.  All businesses open every day in America have this same burden/duty.  

Consider the financial industry, think Wall Street, Insurance Companies, Banks.  These are heavy users of the communications networks including phone, internet, mail, roads to transfer funds, fuel supply, FCC.  Taxpayers pay for maintaining all of that.  The users should pay for it. They will still make obscene profits, just less so.

Maybe even enough less so that they could pay for universal health care, at which point, the middle class would be free to spend more money on their products, and they would no longer have to subsidize their employees' healthcare.

Win/win.  

The middle class in America does not have deep pockets, but they also are not using extravagant resources.  They should pay less, a fair share, but less. 

Or am I missing something really huge and obvious?