TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Greg Mankiw points out just how progressive our tax system is:

If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent.

That’s from the Tax Policy Center, and I should also note that those are effective tax rates.

We can debate whether that rate should be higher, but it isn’t accurate to argue that the rich don’t pay a significant amount in taxes. They do, and they pay significantly more, whether measured as a percentage of income or in absolute terms.

It’s important to keep this in mind as we enter the 2012 campaign. We’re going to hear a lot more about how the rich don’t pay “their fair share.” Knowing the data helps make clear exactly what that means when used as a justification for higher taxes on the wealthy. This isn’t simply a case where the wealthy are paying an absurdly low percentage of tax revenues while the middle class and poor shoulder the burden.

“They don’t pay their fair share” isn’t an empirical claim. It’s a moral claim, and there’s a very high bar to clear when making that argument. Why isn’t nearly a third of their income fair and forty percent of income tax revenue for the top one percent fair? What percentage would be fair? By what standard do you define what is a fair percentage and what isn’t?

And that doesn’t even begin a much more immediate debate: is increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to fund a few more years of unsustainable government spending a desirable policy?

That phrase appeals to people because this recession is affecting the middle class and poor much, much more severely than it is the wealthy, and so placing more of the tax burden on them feels satisfying in some way—they’re going to be affected, too, just like us. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do morally, nor does it mean it’s the right policy.

I tend toward thinking that, long-term, we do need to raise taxes on the wealthy. But this must be a part of a much broader reform, which makes us solvent and successful in the future. This means substantially changing our entitlement programs so they are sustainable over the next century, not just the next decade. This means reforming our tax code with lower marginal rates, less exemptions, exclusions and deductions, and so it doesn’t require a tax professional to understand how much we owe.

Yes, higher taxes on the wealthy will likely need to be a part of comprehensive reform that makes us solvent. But it absolutely should not be used to paper over our structurally unsound spending for a few more years, nor as a campaign wedge and red meat.