I've seen the argument that we should have the federal government raise taxes back to where they were in the Clinton years. Such an argument ignores the bigger picture because when the federal government lowered taxes, a lot of states, including Michigan where I live, raised theirs.
Let's look at Mr. Rich guy who makes $1M a year (after deductions) and owns a $1M home and lives in Michigan.
About $300,000 of his income will go to federal income taxes.
Another $40,000 will go to the state of Michigan.
He will have about $20,000 in property taxes on his house.
So this person, with 1 vote who is using the same roads, schools, and other services as everyone else is paying $360,000 right off the bat.
When he goes to buy something, another 6% is taken for sales tax.
Often times, I'll read about someone not understanding why many people who aren't rich are so adamantly opposed to such taxation even though they're not affected. The reason is principle. There is something inherently corrupt about the idea that one person with one vote is having $360k taken from them purely based on the argument that "he can afford it".
This becomes especially true when one looks at how Mr. Rich would have spent that $360k versus how the government spends it. Because that wealth is going to be spread either way. It's merely a question of who spends it better.
We can all talk about social contracts and what not until the cows come home but at the end of the day, there is something just plain wrong about the government taking so much more from some people than others in an age where increasing amounts of that money are simply being given to others based on "need" where "need" is defined in narrow political terms.