"Fairness," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. No association that I am aware of charges dues that are related to income. Many have reduced dues for youngsters and maybe retired folks, but the dues are the dues. The "fairest" tax for the national government would be to tax everyone equally, the same amount of money. Take the Federal Budget, subtract fees and other revenues, divide the remainder by the population, and send everyone a bill for their fair share. If you don't pay, you can't vote and you get nothing from the government. Less "fair," but more practical would be taxing everyone the same percentage of their income. It has the pernicious effect of forcing people with higher incomes to pay more than their "fair" share - punishing financial success - but it would be tolerable. The least "fair" system would be to have everyone pay a percentage, and have that percentage graduated to be HIGHER for higher incomes. So, not only are you punishing success, you are flogging it. This is horribly unfair, particularly when so much of the federal budget is taken up by government sending money and other goodies to people who didn't earn them. (And when half the population pays no Federal Income Taxes at all). Democrats - being liars by nature - are frequently saying these days such preposterosities as: "Joe Millionaire is paying less in taxes than his SECRETARY!" Hogwash. An executive making a million dollars in salary and bonus is paying AT LEAST $350,000 in taxes to the Federal Government, plus tens of thousands to state, county, and local government. It would be a rare "millionaire" indeed who wasn't paying close to half a million in taxes, in total. His secretary - probably making around $60 thousand MIGHT be paying fifteen thousand in total, including the so-called "payroll" taxes. Let's see...five hundred thousand versus fifteen thousand...and the Dem's are saying she's paying more than him? Not good at math, are they? But for illustration, let's say that the Executive somehow derives all of his million dollars in income through investments. He's still paying at least a hundred fifty thousand in Federal income taxes (versus fifteen thousand for the secretary). And he is getting off easy? And does it occur to anyone that the money that was originally invested to generate that income was "after tax" money THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE? Or that the investments are TOTALLY AT THE RISK OF THE INVESTOR? He could have lost all of it. Would Uncle Sugar pay him back his losses? Probably not. Just remember the end game: Do whatever you can to divert everyone's attention from the President's horrible record and the gargantuan deficits the Democrats have given us over the past three years. If you can divert people with fairy-tales of "rich" people not paying taxes, so much the better. But it's all a lie. Even at capital gains tax rates, people earning millions (legally) are paying huge amounts of money in Federal taxes, many, many times more than the average American wage-earner.