Whatever people think about this tax, I think it is basically immoral. This is why: - people say it is good because it brings more money for the government to

Whatever people think about this tax, I think it is basically immoral. This is why: - people say it is good because it brings more money for the government to spend and wealthy people have money, so they are the easy target to get money from. That makes them just an obvious victim, not the right thing to do. It's a thug mentality to pick the old lady as a victim because it's the easy thing to do. - it is discriminating. To the extreme, if the country has X needs divided by Y people, each person should pay X/Y to cover it. One man, one vote, égalité, fraternité, whatever slogan you want to use means equal rights but equal responsibilities too. - it comes with the justification that the (US or Cali, I am in Europe so I am out of it) government needs more money. That is the rapist argument, someone's needs does not imply someone else's obligation to fulfill the needs. - it comes with the justification that it can be done legally by voting. That is the group rapist's argument, no matter how many people vote it does not make it automatically morally right. - it justifies that the result will be better services. Well, if money is what is needed for better services then why not put a direct payment for the services? Some people would not afford it, so going for someone else to pay for it will make it possible ... not morally right. - the argument that a filthy rich person can pay and still be filthy rich. That is very true, but it is still morally wrong to take someone's money (or wealth or whatever) just because they can afford the loss or they have plenty. My neighbor have several bicycles, does it means it is fine if I take one?