The point isn’t that there’s some secret means test that makes these and other government programs disproportionately benefit the rich. The point is that these “equal” programs are structured in a way that does disproportionately benefit the rich, without stating so outright. Good example: the mortgage deduction. Is it means-tested? Absolutely not. Could anyone, in theory, be eligible for it? Yep. But let’s look at the specific structure of this program:

1. It’s a nonrefundable tax credit. “Nonrefundable” means that you only get as much of a credit as you are slated to pay in income tax. If you are poor and don’t owe much income tax to begin with, a nonrefundable credit won’t be of much help.

2. The credit is scaled with the size of one’s mortgage. Bigger mortgages correspond to better credit. Bigger mortgages also correspond to more expensive homes. Guess who is more likely to have expensive homes and good credit? That’s right, rich people.

To sum up, then, nowhere on the books does it say that, for example, “the mortgage deduction is for rich people only.” But the way it is designed, this and many other programs end up serving the rich much more than they serve the poor.

I suppose if you want to take an extreme argument (which I realize would not satisfy a microeconomics course), yes, a rich person does benefit from more national defense relative to a poor one. Why? Because the state’s the only thing protecting his property rights (and arguable the only thing that creates his right to property), and the state’s military is therefore more proportionately being used to defend him over the people with less money.

Add to that various tax breaks (e.g., most income tax deductions) and the externality effects of government programs, particularly with respect to the productivity of capital, and you’ve got a bundle of government services that predominantly benefits the wealthy.

Why tax the rich more, as they don’t get anymore from the gov’t than others do?

Well … do they? About the only thing that rich people do not get from the government that poor people do is means-tested transfers (TANF, food stamps, Section 8), and those don’t add up to much. The rich do benefit directly from nonrefundable tax credits (such as mortgage deductions), more than the poor, because their taxable income/property tends to be more valuable. Meanwhile, government investment in things like education, infrastructure, the legal system, etc., greatly raises the marginal productivity of capital in this country. That disproportionately rewards those who own and profit from capital. In other words, the rich.

I already pay voluntarily — to charity. Also, you’re assuming a direct tax is the only way to raise revenues. With a limited government, not much would need to be raised, and it could be done indirectly. Taking private property is theft. The income tax leads to statism — now it’s led to unsustainable debt.

They need the money a lot more than the government does.