Wealthy people are a minority in the U.S. and deserve protection from unfair discrimination.

First, I apologize for missing my second argument. "I only mention the rich are a minority to point out that they are defenseless against the will of the majority and will not be able to vote their way out of unfair taxation. They need our help." The rich may not be able to vote by themselves, but they are able to buy airtime (through commercials) and influence (through campaign contributions) that the less well-off cannot. Their power is therefore much greater than the average citizen's. "Wealthy people have historically been mistreated by being forced to pay higher tax rates than the rest of us, so I guess they qualify under that part of your claim. Also there is absolutely no moral justification (or reason as you say) to treat them differently. If they were taxed at the same rate as their fellow citizens their tax burdens would be proportionately commensurate with their incomes, and they would TRULY (to a mathemaical certainty) be paying their fair share of taxes." Progressive taxation has only been in place for the last 90 years. That hardly makes it "historical" when taxes have been around for thousands of years. Moreover, progressive taxation is not mistreatment. Because of the law of diminishing returns, a 10% tax harms someone with a $10,000/year income far more than it would someone with a $100,000/year income, despite the fact that the wealthier of the two pays ten times as much. Losing $1000 at $10,000/year may mean the difference between being able to pay for necessities or not, while $10,000 probably won't make as big of a difference for someone with $100,000/year. "Do you think it would be fair for each customer in a grocery store to pay a different percentage of sales tax (based on their incomes) when the clerk rings them up?" Actually, many people (including myself) have advocated against sales taxes because they cannot be adjusted according to income. Think about this: a family living just above the poverty line ($21,200 for a family of four) likely spends 100% of its income on necessities, and so a 10% sales tax will mean that they have to go without some of their necessities. This would not be the case if a progressive income tax were in place (which would tax them at a much lower rate). A wealthier family (say, $80,000) spends much less on their necessities, and so can afford to pay a higher percentage. "Most informed people would argue that the U.S. owes its success to wealthy capitalists." Actually, they wouldn't. It is certainly true that America has benefited from a capitalist system, but "wealthy capitalists" could never have made their money without: -a military and police force to secure their rights -a legal system that recognizes their right to incorporate -favorable trade agreements -public education and so on. "The rich don't need to be treated unfairly in order to pay more. That is where the percentage comes in handy. If we all paid the same percentage each of our tax burdens would be EQUALLY commensurate with our incomes." Once again, I refer to the law of diminishing returns. The first $20,000 of a person's income is absolutely vital--the difference, sometimes, between life and death. The next $30,000 provides some comfort; the next $30,000 provides much less increase in quality of life, and the next $30,000 even less. To tax each person "equally"--that is, taking away a comparable amount of comfort, the wealthy must be taxed at a higher rate.