No, sorry, that's not what I meant to suggest at all -- I'm far from a moral relativist! My point was that absent any further discussion, a "yes" answer to the

No, sorry, that's not what I meant to suggest at all -- I'm far from a moral relativist! My point was that absent any further discussion, a "yes" answer to the question seems to imply that we should take more money from the rich simply because it's there. I imagine some Congresscritters saying "oh cool, we got another billionaire; let's see if we can find something else to spend this guy's money on". Contrast this with "we've got a war on our hands, and need to pay for our defenses somehow; if we absolutely must have that money, perhaps it should come from the rich". (note that I'm not supporting, or even referring to, any particular war here, this is a thought experiment) I personally do not believe that having a need makes it OK. But framing the question next to a need changes the nature of the question. As it was stated, it appears to be purely envy and class warfare; with a balancing need in the equation it changes to the philosophical question of moral relativism -- which I disagree with, but it is a defensible position.