First I thought I'd start with a couple of quotes from James Madison.
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."
"A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor."
James Madison, On Property
I'm a particular fan of that last sentence. Even back in the late 18th century they understood that uneven taxing based on how successful one was was completely unjust. Yet today it's seen as just fine, in fact you even have a significant portion of the population that is all for taxing more successful people a greater percentage than they already pay. This problem was created by the creation of a federal income tax to begin with, and then exacerbated by creating a series of tax laws so complex we have an entire industry whose entire purpose is to deal with that law to get their customers the greatest number of cuts and write-offs to allow them to keep more of their own money.
"Their own money," that leads back to the first long quote above, where the money a man earns is his property. It is the government's responsibility to protect that property, and one would certainly expect with that responsibility the government should recieve some kind of recompense for its services. After all, even government employees need to be paid. But is it using that money effectively? That's my biggest argument against increased taxes. Before the government should even begin to talk about increasing taxes it should first be required to prove that it is using that money effectively. That includes massively cutting down wasted spending; overpaying on government contracts is a BIG one, purchasing unnecessary items, wasting money on frivolous GSA conferences...
Instead we have politicians all the way to the top screaming in the town square about fairness. Where does the standard of what is fair begin? Where does it end? If millionaires must "pay their fair share," what exactly is fair? The majority of money used to lower the effective tax rate of the rich is money donated to a cause they believe in, not money hidden away. A good portion of the rest is spent on investment, money earned then applied toward another venture or used to further the goals of a current one. Before you cry that their tax rate is lower than yours, look at all the deductions you get, the money the government pays you back. What is your tax rate really at? My bet is, unless you're making over $200k it's somewhere down around the 5-10% range. That's lower than what Mitt Romney pays, even after his massive charity donations (10% to the Mormon church alone, or ~$3.3 million).
The major adversaries for lowering or keeping the tax rates on the rich where they are are the same people that do not donate at all, or donate very little. Joe Biden and his wife only donated 1.5% of their $387k. Al Gore barely donates 1% of his yearly income from the fraud that is man-made climate change, yet spends hundreads of thousands on spreading his views and then spends millions on his home and transportation around the world (those personal airplane flights aren't cheap).
Also the tax brackets they are seeking to increase include those single people making $200k, or couples making $250k, not just the millionaires and billionaires. That is hardly millions a year, and also affects a good number of small business owners (mom & pop places especially) who file their yearly earnings under personal income taxes to avoid the massive corporation taxes (soon to be the highest in the entire world).
Next time you go off on how it's not fair that these people make so much, remember the above. Don't be jealous because so many of them work harder for that money, and earned it through that hard work even if you don't know everything they went to to get that cushy CEO job. The only truly undeserving "rich" are the professional sports and movie stars, they get to play a game or play make-believe all day long for their cash, yet they seem to keep trying to identify with the little guy... Which class of person is being fake here again?