Regarding banking, it's part of the total cost of supporting the system that drives our country. A well funded banking system is essential and those with significant funds best reap the benefits of it, but they also pay the lowest fees.
What I think is missing from your argument though, is a connection that illustrates why this is a reason that the rich should pay more taxes.
I'm sure there are lots of lifestyle advantages to being rich, but the notion that this translates into moral justification to stick it to them through the tax code to be flimsy.
Regarding infrastructure and related expenses, the rich gain far more proportionally than their higher usage would indicate.
Some do, some don't and they don't necessarily do so simply because they are rich, and many other demographics get more out of society than others but aren't used to justify different levels of taxation.
If your argument is really use-based then use should be targeted in the tax code and not mere socio-economic status.
That's not bad since the rich turn around and hire the middle class then the middle class turns around and hires the poor. For the rich, taxes are a case of spend money to make money.
At least you don't want it both ways, pretending that contributions to society from the rich are not also proportionally greater than that of the poor on average.
The rich do not benefit when their taxes go down by a few thousand dollars (that they won't notice) but the police department is cut in size, (crime directly and strongly correlates to police presence) since an uptick in crime will do more harm to their property values and way of life than will ever be made up by lower taxes. Nor do they benefit when the SEC doesn't have the resources to investigate financial fraud, both because they fall prey to the Enrons and Madoffs of the world and because they must spend more money to compete in a lawless climate.
But this is a completely false dilemma. You pose it as a choice between taxing the rich and having useful social programs but it could just as well mean not going around and bombing the world.
You can't just cherry pick spending and claim a false dilemma wherein failure to accept progressive taxation of the rich equates to acceptance of an erosion of social safety nets.
All of these efficiency gains bestow gains to the rich far outweighing the cost in higher taxes IMO. Paying higher taxes, both in absolute terms and in percentage terms is a pretty reasonable investment to keep the good times going.
So is your moral argument essentially that it's right to compel them to pay more than you because it's for their own good? I don't want to get distracted into the minutiae of whether or not that is the case, but want to distill your ethical arguments. If that is not an accurate representation of them can you try to summarize the ethical basis for it?