I agree that they shouldn't have to lose money they don't want to. Even if they were born into it, even moreso if they legitimately earned it (which, it should be noted, would still require tremendous luck in addition to hard work, no amount of which is sufficient to guarantee success). Taxes shouldn't have to be levied. The free market should fill all the gaps in construction of infrastructure, public service, and all the other areas where government intervention is becoming more and more common.
But that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where greed is a thing, and where personal success at the expense of others is a winning strategy, and winning lets you perpetuate that strategy further. Where corporate freedoms can, counterintuitively, strangle the freedoms of people who actually exist. Just for an obvious example, it's in an insurance company's best interests never to fulfill the purpose for which it exists - paying on policies is not profitable. So this sort of function needs to be tied to another system where consequences for abuse can (in theory) be applied. A government is, again in theory, great for this, but you need to prevent corruption and that's a problem. Can't think of alternatives, though, I'm rather trapped in the current paradigm at the moment. All I can do is figure out ideas for refining what we have right now.
Graduated taxes and all that are the necessary overhead for living in a world where your chances of being able to actually earn your way up from the bottom are maximized. Even if you're making a net payment due to your massive income (don't neglect the savings provided by public infrastructure such as the ubiquitous federal highway example), you're just subsidizing the system that makes rhetoric about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps viable. Think about it that way, if you rather, instead of as subsidizing people who were too lazy/unlucky to succeed.