> Now imagine two people, A and B, who earn $20,000/year and $80,000/year respectively. It's more unethical to take $200 from A than it is to take $800 from B.

> Now imagine two people, A and B, who earn $20,000/year and $80,000/year respectively. It's more unethical to take $200 from A than it is to take $800 from B. Why? Just taking money is wrong. The usual argument is that the government takes money from people to provide a service. If the government takes more money from you and provides less of a service (i.e. it is busy with wealth redistribution) it is wrong - it is simple theft by the masses. > As an argument ad absurdum, imagine that instead of taking away a flat percentage (1% of annual income for both), a flat absolute amount were taken instead ($500). The argument for flat tax is usually that in order to make money a person uses the infrastructure (roads, ect...). If he makes more money the argument is that he used the public services more. While this is not correct (lower income groups disproportionately use public services) it can be argued as such. There is however no defence for progressive taxation - other than wealth redistribution.