No, not my argument. My argument for progressive income taxes is mainly that some means of wealth redistribution is necessary to compensate for fact that those with more money to invest get more to invest next year,etc. Do a simple math model and don't for get that both rich and poor need to eat. As I remember the last time I posted such a model in detail I took X dollars from poor and 5 X from the rich's incomes for the "essentials of their life" and assumed the poor had income of I and the rich of 100I. Realistically X is nearly equal to I say X = 0.8I. Then the rich have available to invest (100I -5X) = 96 I and the poor only can invest 0.2I thus the rich of this model gain 480 times more in interest earning annually than the poor. POINT is that with any half way reasonable model, the rich get richer much faster than the poor do so unless there is some means of weathy re-distribution society will go unstable as in the French revolution as all the wealth of the society will become concentrated in the hands of the few - This result is a simple fact of compounding interest. (Commonly expressed as: "It takes money to make money.") Thus I favor progressive income tax rate and inheritance taxes. SUMMARY: Some such means of wealth redistribution is not a social choice but a mathematical necessity for society to be stable. Note there is not a word here about infrastructure and who pays for it, but if only the wealthy do and all benefit, that is another means of achieving part of the necessary re-distribution of wealth. Also note that, in part because of GWB's tax relief for the wealthy (1.1 trillion taken from the treasury or not collected thus far by the top 2%) currently THERE IS VERY INADEQUATE REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. I.e. the gap between the rich and even the middle class is rapidly widening - I.e. the wealth of the US is becoming concentrated. - The US is getting an income structure more typical of South American countries. Ironically in Brazil that gap is rapidly closing by a redistribution of wealth program called "Balsa Familia" that pays the poor to keep their children in school until age 18. (Previously they were sent to work in the fields with only a few years of schooling.) No. For that to be true, at least in my case, I would need to have advanced some argument as to who should pay more for infrastructure, but I have not. Do you want to try to disprove the mathematical necessity of wealth re-distribution?