I can't help but think this whole thread is aimed at me!
This is a hugely complex issue and I don't claim by any means to fully understand it all but here is my understanding of it.
VAT - this is an unfair tax for low earners. Whilst well off people may buy more stuff overall these tend to be luxury items and as a proportion of their income low earners have much more of their spending subject to VAT on essentials. For example, those at the border of fuel poverty will be paying a considerable portion of their income simply on heating (and thus the VAT) whereas for a rich person the VAT on heating will be relatively inconsequential out of their income.
NI - I know I've said I'd rather have seen NI raised than VAT but I've never seem anyone suggest there should be a higher earner rate. I certainly haven't. Raising NI protects the poor compared to VAT as there is a lower earning limit at which no NI is paid thus it only affects those earning above a certain amount.
Who is rich and who is poor - there are different ways of calculating average income but the one generally used is about £23k gross (a fairer way comes in at £21k but that debate is for another thread). See all the rich/poor divide thread for details of wealth distribution. Remember that earning an 'average' salary doesn't necessarily mean that amount is sufficient to live on, it is just a measure of how earnings are averaged out by population.
CB was mentioned - I think it is wrong that there is no longer a universal benefit. Just because a family has wealth it doesn't always follow that it is shared with women/children. As a woman's benefit CB historically was the only income many women had and meant they could care for their children regardless what their husbands did. Whilst this is most likely much less the case (though only 40% of women with children under 5 are in work) it was still an important benefit for uniting the rights of women and children universally. It created buy in to the welfare system for higher earners. The notion that a single parent earning over £35k wil lose it but a family earning almost twice that (plus the benefit of two tax free personal allowances) get to keep it is ludicrous.
I do think it is ok and indeed right for the rich to be taxed more. The reason I believe this is down to wealth distribution, social mobility and social responsibility. It is well recognised that children born in wealth are way more likely to die there whereas those born in poverty are more likely to die so. It is extremely difficult for people born at the low end to raise their prospects, and will be even harder now that university fees are so high. Being born rich opens up enormous opportunity that poorer people simply cannot benefit from. I'm not going to go into them all unless I have to as it'll take me all day to respond!
When considering pay there is considerable inequality. Women continue to earn less than men for the same job. The essential jobs such as caring and food provision are disgustingly low paid whereas jobs that make money (like financiers) earn ludicrously high amounts. In the middle there are jobs for which the pay better reflects the level of training and responsibility but they are pretty much all jobs requiring a degree and as such confer an advantage on those who are born more wealthy.
I think the wealthy have a responsibility to take care of their society and fellow man. Let us also bear in mind that benefit fraud costs about £1bn and tax evasion about £50bn...
No, I don't think it is a particularly fair system right now for anyone but I also don't think it is possible to make it totally fair as the relative opportunities and responsibilities are individual could never be calculated.
And for my own part I do understand the grievances people have about the current system. My husband and I are in that middle bit that lost money when the 10p tax was scrapped (bad move by Labour). I got a pay rise last year after negotiating more responsibilities for myself in lieu of not having any job to apply for because my sector almost universally employs in London and the south. That pay rise has knocked our household income over the tax credit boundary which means no support for the £13,500 childcare we face next year which is more than my husband's net salary therefore we have to find a way to live on one income. Neither of us earns as much as the average salary despite both holding high degrees. My brother's family are single earners. He works in finance and gets about £50k. He's just lost all his credits and benefits. The catch is they have 5 children aged 1-12, my sil is a sahm (as if anyone could afford the childcare) and is studying a degree part time.
The system is far from perfect but it could be less fair I suppose. Sorry for the mammoth post!
We are eligible for absolutely no assistance.
she had her sone 5 days after I had my girls. 
