Can we talk a little sense on this issue of how much certain groups should pay in federal taxes?

We have some heavy lifting to do together to turn around our economic situation. It’s important to reach some sort of intelligent consensus on what everyone’s “fair share” is. Past generations had to answer this question over the course of the last century, and we should be able to answer it today.

Here’s my take.

First, I believe that the more income you receive, the more you should pay in “common charges” (aka taxes) to the national enterprise.

I don’t believe the retired bank teller earning $30,000 from Social Security should pay the same rate as Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett or someone earning a million dollars a year. Put the other way round, I think Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett should pay taxes at a higher rate than their assistants, drivers or maids. Buffett, at least, agrees with that. And the recent income tax modifications in New York State respected the idea that the rich should pay more than the middle class.

For one thing, the burden of taxes on someone earning a million dollars or more per year is far less onerous than the burden on a tight middle-class family budget. Burden counts. But also, someone earning more has benefited more from the common investments we taxpayers make — roads, transportation, airports, the “common defense,” etc. — and so should pay more in return. That principle has been pretty well observed throughout our history. And to those who say too many pay no federal income tax at all and everyone should pay something, I reply: Fine, let’s add a minimum that everyone must pay.

Second, I think investment income — which today is mostly taxed at 15 percent, a rate lower than many middle-class families pay on their earnings — should be taxed at least at the same level as ordinary income. And there is a strong case it should be taxed at a higher rate.

The overwhelming majority of investment income is received by the richest among us, so there’s no case for a low rate based on need. And there is no evidence that taxing investment income at the rate of ordinary income produces less reinvestment or fewer jobs. The investment income tax rate today is as low as it’s been for a long, long time, and it’s creating fewer jobs than when the rate was higher.

This suggests that the decision to reinvest in growth as opposed to safety is not primarily a function of the tax rate. In our particular situation today, some of those investments the rich live on were bailed out by us taxpayers, which makes an even stronger case that they should pay more to help offset the public debt that saved their bacon.

And the “carried interest” loophole, whereby profits for hedge fund managers are taxed at only 15 percent, is outrageous. Gimmicks like that undermine public confidence in the entire system.

If we are concerned about hardworking lower- and middle-income folks and retirees — as we should be — then we need to pay attention to the rates at which we tax income from their savings.

We want to encourage savings, especially after the consumer credit orgy of the last decade. Today, the Fed is keeping interest rates down to make credit available to business; this really socks it to savers. It would make sense to exempt from income tax, say, the first $5,000 of interest from savings for those earning under a million dollars. And that would produce an additional reason to tax other investment income, in order to make up the revenue lost by protecting the savings of low- and middle-class working folks.

P.S.: It’s not “class warfare” to discuss this issue. That’s a red herring introduced by those who don’t want any discussion at all.

Peter Goldmark, a former publisher of the International Herald Tribune, headed the climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund. He wrote this for Newsday on Long Island, N.Y.