Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The voting majority does not necessarily have a right to my property because they said so.
The voting majority does not necessarily have a right to my property because they said so.
Also, if democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, what do you think would happen in that situation if the wolves abandoned voting?
Others may ignore your rights and abuse your freedoms, but that does not make it acceptable, and it doesn't mean those rights and freedoms don't exist.
The wolves and sheep are aggressors and prey. Your hypothetical is an analogy for theft - the majority 'taking' what it wants by disregarding the rights and freedoms of the minority.
"Human rights" isn't an excuse to not pay taxes, nor do they even forbid progressive tax policies.
> Your hypothetical is an analogy for theft
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am against theft and in favour of democracy, so I agree that my hypothetical of the wolves abandoning democracy was not something I thought would lead to a better societal outcome.)
A society which accepts the principle of private property might agree that certain "taking" is theft, but a society can equally decide that the "taking" of tax payments is not theft. Just because a group is a minority and strongly opposes what the majority want, doesn't make the minority's desire inherently more moral than that of the majority, even if they express their desire in terms of "rights and freedoms".
Roads, police, fire fighters, border security, armed forces, environment regulators, etc. I'm certainly open to debating what does and does not fall into this category for fair and acceptable taxation.
But to argue that 'we are taxing your wealth because you have too much' obviously falls outside of that category.
[0] https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12309/concepts/diminishin...
There's a big difference between those things and taxing your whole net worth every year.
I'm not sure what essential philosophical or ethical objection there is to that, though, since money is constantly changing hands and being taxed (e.g. on the way in as income, and on the way out as consumption/sales tax). Moreover, as taxation changes incentives, it should be targeted to reduce socially negative actions, and arguably "wealth hoarding" is worse for society than "income", which is currently an accepted target for taxation.
I think the biggest "fairness" argument for a wealth tax, though, is that the average US household has a net worth of $120k, and pays $10k in total taxes per year, which is equivalent to an 8% wealth tax. (Of course it's true that if the household decided to not earn any money, it could greatly reduce its tax burden, but that's not really an option for most tax payers, whereas billionaires never have to work a day in their life).
So I would tie the wealth tax to be equivalent to the effective rate that the median household pays, but allow deductions for any other payments the wealthy person paid to the government or to charities. Also, for simplicity, the wealth tax should only apply to households above a certain wealth threshold, perhaps 10x or 100x of the median.
Who says that?