If you are "given" more, then you should pay more, but if you are simply able to exploit the baseline resources more effectively and therefor reap more benefit, then you shouldn't have to pay more for your own ingenuity or luck. And I believe that's more accurately what's happening with how the wealthy use resources.
I see your point here, and it seems reasonable enough, as far as it goes. However, it ignores practical politics. The first paved roads built by the states and federal government came with the advent of the automobile, and it would be a generation before Henry Ford had the brilliant idea of manufacturing automobiles that the working class could afford. Paved roads only became common because the relatively wealthy owners of automobiles would benefit from it.
Furthermore, an affluent developer can buy land for a housing development or a shopping center, and property will be condemned for rights of way. If you live near that right of way, you might have wished for a paved access road for years--but you only benefit from it now because someone with clout wants it. That developer can sell off the now much more valuable property and his profit from it will be capital gains. That's a form of income, but it's a special form of income. The highest nominal rate will be 15%, even if his normal nominal tax rate is 35%. You won't be enjoying the benefits of capital gains any time soon (i'm assuming for purposes of discussion that capital gains don't constitute your ordinary form of income, no insult is intended).
Putting aside all the corruption which does actually "give" them something that nobody else benefits from (the corruption is an entirely different problem and I don't think it's what you are referring to with your basic argument), most of the extra benefit the wealthy get from government services (roads and police and such) are simply a more efficient exploitation of a baseline service which everyone benefits from to varying degrees.
The interstate highway system is the first major infrastructure project in this country which has benefited everyone coincidentally--it's original purpose was military. It is precisely because capitalists benefit most from it, however, that i believe they should pay a much higher nominal rate. As with that right of way that the developer obtains, tax revenues are used to pave a road and then to maintain it, and the benefit to you is only coincidental. Those for whom this was done should have to pay for their additional benefit. This is not just more efficient exploitation of a baseline service. This is the exploitation of a service the intent of which was to benefit those who are exploiting it most.
The risk to applying a disproportionate tax based on a person (or company's) ability to exploit available resources (government services) more efficiently is that it will hinder efficiency itself and throttle innovation and growth.
I cannot agree with this. This is to me the equivalent of the arguments advanced in the 19th and early 20th centuries against floors on wages and ceilings on hours. The claim was that it would stifle business and throw people out of work. But that didn't happen. If a capitalist can only make a 10% return on his investment rather than a 20% return, he's not going to put the cash in a matress and sit at home pouting. He's going to accept a situation he can't change and take his 10% return, and use as much as he feels he can afford to buy political influence to fight any new measures which threaten his capital gains, such as occupational health and safety, workers' compensation and disability insurance. And after he loses those battles, he's still going to invest his money because he's still going to generate a capital gain, and he's still going to pay a lower nominal tax rate on a capital gain than you are on your earned income.
I think it's better to "take proportionally and give back disproportionally", than to "take disproportionally and give back disproportionally". The first way is transparent and encourages growth and innovation and (hopefully) chartable giving. The other way throttles innovation and efficiency and results in feelings of unfairness and tendency toward subterfuge and hoarding (to counter the perceived unfairness).
I think this is naive, too. In the 50s and 60s with much higher nominal tax rates for the highest brackets, the United States was a powerhouse of innovation and growth. Much of that (some would say most of it) came from government spending on the military and the space program. Your tax dollars at work (OK, maybe your dad's tax dollars at work). Other nations complained then (and still do) about the brain drain to the United States, and the reason is that our business climate makes it far easier to start a business and profit from it here than is the case anywhere else. If you get a brilliant idea tomorrow, you can charter an S-corporation in a couple of days, and the next day, in a few hours, you can have a vendor's license, withholding agent certificates and all the other official documents to start your business. You can be in business in under a week's time, and so long as you don't fiddle the employment taxes the government will pretty much leave you alone unless and until they have evidence of gross malfeasance on your part. At every point in the development of the industrial democracies capitalists have squealed about the costs of doing business if they were forced to negotiate with trades unions. (These were outlawed in most countries of Europe and North America until the late 19th century, and capital fought a rear guard action against labor well into the 1930s. Then Reagan recommenced hostilities when he busted the air traffic controllers union in the 1980s, and capital has been aggressively advancing against labor ever since.) They squealed about the cost of doing business if child labor laws were enacted. They squealed about the cost of doing business when the fire marshalls began to come around to inspect. They squealed about the cost of doing business when fair labor standards were introduced. They squealed about the cost of doing business when occupational health and safety regulations were introduced. They squealed about the cost of doing business when environmental protection legislation was introduced.
Guess what? Innovation and efficiency are alive and well in the industrial world, and capitalists live as even kings once only dreamed of. When NASA began the Mercury program, the nominal tax rate in the hightest bracket was 91%. When Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon, the nominal tax rate in the highest bracket was 77%. It doesn't seem to have stiffled innovation or efficiency.