That's debatable and my view is that it is untrue.

Each of us needs a certain amount of wealth to secure and maintain what is considered by our society to be a reasonable and sustainable 'quality of life.'

Many lower income or even average income earners, are unable to fund that level of quality of life or struggle inordinately to do so. The wealthy, however, can easily meet that level and have excess income/wealth with which they can do as they wish.

Having those who have excess wealth beyond what is necessary, while others struggle simple to survive, is not equality. Therefore, it is reasonable to require those with excess income/wealth over what is required for that 'reasonable life. style', to pay a higher rate of tax, the use of which can then be devoted to assisting those on lesser incomes to reach a level where they can also enjoy that reasonable level of quality of life. i.e. That higher tax rate contributes to the establishment of equality, not the opposite.

Where wages and salaries are concerned, those in the higher income levels also benefit from inequality disguised by the common. use of percentages when wage rises are sought and achieved. It certainly demonstrates that what is accepted as equal, is far from it.

When a wage rise is negotiated and percentages are used, it is common for that %age to be applied across the board. Effectively, this means that those who already receive the larger wage, also receive the larger raise - in actual $ terms. 5% of $100 per week is $5. 5% of $500 per week $25. So those who most need a raise get the least and those who least need it get the most. Yet this is given the appearance of being an equal outcome.

In fact, it is just another of those illusions that cause the difference between the haves and have-nots to continue to increase with each passing year.