I'll copy my answer from above since I think it's an important point and relates to your question:

"Money at the top levels is not at all like money for the rest of us. For a middle class citizen, money is about consumption and freedom to do what you want (with enough of it).

At the top end of the distribution, money is no longer about consumption or freedom (since you can never realistically consume as much as they have, and you don't have to work after you've saved like $10M). Money at that level is a proxy for power - a group of oligarchs can basically have the power of a shadow government, but unelected. And the real question to ask is "how much power/leverage do we want an individual (or a group of rich oligarchs) to have in a democracy."

So taxing the rich is not even about spreading the wealth, necessarily - if you redistributed it directly you might get inflation by redirecting investment money into consumption. It's more about limiting the amount of power that a person can accumulate over others."

If you take away rich people's money, other kinds of "insiders" will still pull the levers to enrich themselves and benefit their cronies at the expense of the public well-being.

The regulatory state, even if democratic, is fundamentally self-disregulating (as opposed to self-regulating).

Anecdotal... my peers (upper middle-class in the US) generally realize the taxes they pay fund all the stuff we rely upon to stay upper middle-class. Good public schools, roads, etc. We just want the rich to pay their fair share too.

Or, if you're a jaded cynic, the rich are mostly just greedy sociopaths. They want to minimize their own tax burden and give zero fucks about the betterment of society. They got theirs, screw everybody else.

Both of those things are definitely untrue.

When I lived in the US, the vast majority of my taxes went to the federal government and didn't come back in local benefits like schools and roads.

(Sure, federal money comes back to universities in the form of research grants which pay for foreign PhD students to work in bullshit paper mills. I've seen that firsthand. The wastage of federal money is near 100%.)

Separately, I've known lots of rich people. Of course, they are just like other people. They are not all greedy sociopaths. Grow up.

~$60 billion/year of federal funds goes to transportation. ~$1,000 billion/year goes to health care. ~100 billion/year goes to education.

The money we pay in federal taxes (whether it be income or other taxes) doesn't just vanish into the ether, it comes back via various government programs.

Yet our transportation infrastructure is decaying; our healthcare is among the worst in the world--the governments pays AND we pay out of pocket AND it still sucks; and our education sucks.

Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes. Maybe $5,000 per year.

~$60 billion/year of federal funds goes to transportation. ~$1,000 billion/year goes to health care. ~100 billion/year goes to education.

Regardless of any specific programs I did or didn't list above, the money we pay in federal taxes doesn't just vanish into the ether, it comes back via various government programs.

True, it is does not vanish. However, the stewardship is out of the hands of the labor that begot it. There’s a reason We have the military industrial complex, cushy public-sector union jobs, and DC/East Virginia as one of the wealthiest regions of the country. It isn’t because these people are sweating blood and tears trying to find good opportunities where they can carefully deploy the taxes taken out of the tip jar.

> Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes

A significant share of road and school funding comes from the federal government, which doesn’t levy property taxes. Another significant chunk usually comes from the State, which in many states does not rely on property taxes.

Ok, but even adding in federal and state contributions we’re talking about a fraction of all govt spending.