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

"The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is not to prevent discrimination against all minorities: : after all, it is perfectly rational to refuse to hire a convicted pedophile to run a day care center." Comparing the wealthy the pedophiles? Nice. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws are to make sure that ALL citizens are treated equally regardless of whether they are a minority or not. 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. "Instead, they (anti-discrimination laws) are designed to prevent discrimination against groups that have historically been mistreated or discriminated against and whom there is no reason to treat differently" 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. Since it looks like I'll need to convince that an injustice has even occurred against the wealthy, let me appeal to your common sense (or at least that of the readers). 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? Common sense tells you such a requirement would be absurdly unfair. You may find a way to argue that such a policy would indeed be fair, or that I have not used a good analogy. But in either case, I'm certain most readers would see that you were reaching. "It is true that they (the wealthy) are a minority in the U.S., but then, so are white males, who have most certainly not been been targeted for discrimination, harassment, or bigotry." What's your point? Regardless of whether white males are currently victims of discrimination, the law would come to their defense if such discrimination were to take place. American law should ensure that citizens are treated based on the content of their character and not the color of the their skin (or the size of their wallets). Still, you have not made a good case for the unfair treatment of those with deeper pockets. Your defense for unfair treatement is that the rich can afford it and that there are some benefits to society. But that argument does not hold water. In almost all cases of discrimination, there is a beneficiary, and there are also victims of discrimination better equipped to tolerate it than others. Both are poor excuses for defending discrimination. "Second, let us examine whether progressive taxes serve a compelling state interest." Of course it serves a compelling state interest-- so did slavery. Again not a good enough reason to mistreat a group of people. "In short, the wealthy owe their success to the government." Most informed people would argue that the U.S. owes its success to wealthy capitalists. You may want to check into that one. "It is only fair and rational that they pay more to support the government. It is not discrimination." 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. I have no problem with the rich paying their fair share, so please stop arguing in favor of the rich simply paying more taxes than the poor. You need to justify the unfair treatment resulting from progressive tax rates which require the rich to pay more than their fair share.