It&#x27;s interesting that you view taxation as a violent fundamental wealth redistribution.  Taxes do suck and I&#x27;m not going to argue that point, but it&#x27;s  interesting because without taxes we would be living in a fundamentally violent society (since there is no government support a monopoly on violence - e.g. Somalia - everyone then may be violent to achieve personal goals).<p>How about we all try getting rich (or just keep our wealth out of violent neighboring hands) without violence or a government.  Try to even significantly increase any meager income in that situation.<p>My point is that without taxes and the government they support, there is nothing but violence to support any type of venture.  This has historical bearing with places that were lawless yet aplenty with resource for ventures (e.g. North American colonies, Wild West, etc...).<p>If in particular you meant a progressive tax policy that increases the percentage of taxation with your income level is what you&#x27;re describing as violent then I can see your point a bit more clearly.  Why punish the people who are being more productive, right?<p>Well the thing is that the owners of capital get the most extreme benefit from government.  Never the other way around.  It makes sense to me that the biggest recipients become the biggest supporters.<p>For a brief anecdote, poor people who earn wages get social programs to help sometimes, which are then largely obfuscated from public comprehension so you&#x27;ll need a social worker just to get started.  Rich people who own capital get business subsidies in the form of cash on the books.  They are both paid from taxes and supported by the government.  Who do you think benefits most from the government here?  The business owner or the wage earner?  Who is being stopped more readily from using violence with this support from government?<p>So taxes support all of this precarious balance in a capitalist society because the government is the only thing we have found to solve this problem of violence.