who has more to lose if order and the fabric of society break down, those with or those without? if you already have nothing, and live in uncivilized territort

who has more to lose if order and the fabric of society break down, those with or those without? if you already have nothing, and live in uncivilized territorty, the breakdown of order will make things worse, but marginally less so than for those isolated from the ills of poverty. lets call a spade a spade and treat tax like what it is, a protection racket. you are protecting yourself from two things: alien invaders and zombie hoards. health care, food, housing, and, entertainment keep the hoards from destroying your logistics infrastructures and disrupting transportation routes. it also keeps them just alive enough to keep buying what you are selling. defense, police forces, and tough crime laws reduce your risk of having your factories and warehouses bombed or burned to the ground. in short, you are paying for muscle and placation, keeping the peace. (edit: forgot, you are also paying for intellectual property protection, so your inventiveness cant be cloned or repackaged.) why should the 'rich' pay the majority of the taxes? because it benefits them the most to have low crime healthy consumers. whose problem does it end up being if the 99% are unemployed, homeless, starving, diseased, and unable to consume. whose house slash bunker is going to get broken into, the person with nothing, or the person with years of survival stockpile? why should the 'rich' pay the majority of the taxes? because they are the ones with something to lose (a business, a family, a lifestyle), worth paying to protect. all that said, im not defending the current tax code or federal government as an efficient or effective way to put that "protection/socialorder" tax to good use.