Forced wealth redistribution is, of course, a fundamental principle of "progressive" economics. Back before the ideology was called "progressive," the phrase began "from each according to his ability..."

If a storekeeper charged someone ten times more for the same loaf of bread because they made ten times the money, he'd be lucky if the cops didn't call on him.

^"those who benefit the most from any arrangement should bear the major part of its upkeep."^

When applied to government financing and spending this is, of course, crap. It comes up a lot, and like the first part of the premise, we're supposed to let it hang in midair without questioning it. My response has always been, "show me the cash flow." Show me where more actual government money flows to the average wealthy person than the average middle class person, particularly in proportion to the taxes paid.

So let's not get high and mighty about progressive taxation. There's only one reason the rich get bitten harder than the rest of us. As Willie Sutton (another famous looter) once said: "That's where the money is."

If every one of the 90 million taxpayers who paid taxes this year actually paid an equal share, the "low" tax bill you posted about elsewhere would have been over $42,000.

If anything, the wealthy prosper in America despite the government, not because of it. And far from gaining more from the government than the less-wealthy, if you look at the actual cash flow, the rich subsidize the vast majority of government services for the rest of us.

To give you credit, you did notice the contradiction.