This is problematic in a democratic society, and we have moved quite far in this direction. I certainly do not argue with the central principle of progressive taxation, which is that the wealthy should pay more in taxes, both in absolute and percentage terms. Besides the utilitarian fact that it hurts them less, the rich have both more influence over and a greater stake in government decisions than does the average citizen, and therefore it is only reasonable that they should pay more. Just because some progressivity is good doesn't mean that more progressivity is always better. I think we have reached a point where it is relevant to ask what it means when millions of citizens in a democratic society pay little or nothing in taxes to support that society's public services and endeavors.
All citizens have equal rights under the law.
No one would argue that someone should take the food off his table or the clothes off his back in order to pay taxes. Defending the right of the rich to keep their money is never popular. However, I'm going to make two arguments which attempt to do just that. First is the argument I made earlier, that returning the surplus to the people rightly means returning it to those who paid it. What it means is that Bush's tax cuts will actually increase the progressivity of the system, not decrease it.