Current plans from the majority of Democratic candidates invoke these two popular plans as a means toward balancing the budget:

1.  Remove the payroll cap on Social Security.

2.  Roll back the Bush tax cuts for the bracket.

Either one of these changes might be a prudent way to produce greater revenue without significantly impacting economic incentives.

But take the two of them combined, and you're looking at roughly a 20% increase in highest marginal tax rate.

One might still make a case that it's justified, but you'd have a hard time arguing that that won't impact incentives for entrepeneurship and investment here.

These sorts of issues won't affect the super-rich either way -- the top 0.1% -- because their taxes are essentially untouchable (I remember reading an article on Theresa Heinz Kerry's finances somewhere investigating her taxes and estimating that her effective rate was less than 10%).  It'll affect those who are merely "rich", those with incomes ranging from about $500,000 up to $2 million or so.

One might be tempted to say, "Well, they're rich anyway!  Who cares what happens to them?", but as this excellent article points out, they have options for where to put their money - we can't simply enslave everyone making above a certain figure and prevent them from leaving the country!

So my question to you, then, is: What should our overall tax burden be?  At what point would you stipulate that the rich are paying their share, the tax system is as you'd like it, and no changes are necessary?  And how would you defend that proposed distribution from the criticisms of either side - that it's not progressive enough, or that it discourages entrepreneurship?