The problem is that you want to attach a disproportionate value to social services and roads when it comes to the rich, based on the notion that they take more from society than everyone else. My argument is: number one, they don’t “take” money from society, society “gives” it to them in return for whatever it is that they are offering and which society wants badly enough to part with its hard-earned money for; and two, under a flat tax system they would already be paying their fair share for police and fire services, highways, etc. It’s when you tax them disproportionately and excuse that by claiming that they have somehow profited disproportionately as a result of the benefits provided by the society they live in that it becomes unfair, socialistic and confiscatorial.
They do. But it’s disproportionate and therefore unfair. A flat tax would insure that rich people pay their fair share. More than that is classist, socialistic and confiscatorial, as I said just above.