Does how you pay taxes affect how you feel about taxes?

It’s fair to say there is a significant difference in the reaction to paying taxes between social classes in the U.S. While no one is thrilled about having to pay taxes, it is primarily the rich who lobby for lower taxes; poor people contact their representatives mostly for other issues. So given that rich people have a stronger aversion to payer taxes, I am curious if there is a difference in the way taxes are paid by each class and if there is a correlation between payment method and attitudes.

The majority of taxes paid by most people are garnished from their wages before they receive their paychecks. In other words, the taxes they shell out never directly pass through their hands so they don’t experience the feeling of directly paying the government for government provided services. But the majority of the income earned by rich people is through returns on investment. How are taxes paid on this income? Do these taxpayers personally make direct payments to the IRS? Do they feel as if they are paying the government (mostly federal) for services (mostly local) they don’t receive?

If the way rich people pay taxes fosters a sense of resentment towards the government, are there ways to change how taxes are garnished to minimize this effect?

On a related note… How are tax payments managed in Scandinavian countries where taxes are much higher than in the U.S.?

Smaller percentage of a growing pie

Many mainstream economists avoid the issue of income inequality by claiming it can be resolved by ‘growing the economy’ so that the entire ‘pie’ gets larger. This argument is essentially that a smaller percentage of a larger pie is more than a larger percentage of a small pie. This is true in absolute terms: 12% of 1000 (120) is greater than 15% of 750 (112.5). But if the piece of the pie held by lower wage workers continues to shrink, at some point the absolute value shrinks to some negligible amount… obviously not a cure to income inequality. So do those mainstream economists have a real fix or is it all smoke and mirrors?

How much extractive economic activity can the earth support?

Economic activity starts by extracting something from the environment…

To understand this conclusion, work backwards from any final consumer product, be it physical or intellectual: plastic toy <- molded from resin <- chemical transformation of petrochemicals <- drilled/extracted from environment; book <- printed on paper <- made from wood pulp <- from trees cut from environment; meal at a local restaurant <- made with ingredients from local supplier/distributor <- grown by farmers who extract their products directly (plants) or indirectly (animals) from their environment… this is true for all products in the economy.

So how much exists to be extracted and what happens when we reach the limits?