I have a serious question:
Differential citizenship is generally verboten - It's generally considered abhorrent to offer different sets of rights or protections to people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, geographical origin and national origin.
Yet differential citizenship on the basis of a financial characteristic - like wealth - is not only embraced, but encouraged by the same people who call for other types of equality from the state.
If you are philosophically in support of the state treating all people equally regardless of their race or religion, shouldn't you be against wealth-based social welfare programs and the progressive income tax?
I understand the logic behind progressive taxation and a social safety net for the most vulnerable, but doesn't a commitment to the equality of mankind in the eyes of the state also mean that inequitable treatment by the state, no matter the basis, becomes an abhorrence?