Abstract
If we acknowledge that life is not only governed by merit and blame, but also by chance and luck, we can feel quite moral if we transfer some material wealth from those who were favored by chance to those who were unlucky. For it can be taken as established that the poor are not necessarily those who "should have tried harder" just as not every rich person is a responsible worker. Through taxes, which are a crucial source of revenue for public budgets, the state can relatively efficiently finance public policies that guarantee access to quality health care, education, transport infrastructure and other goods that are expensive on the free market. It is then worth considering whether it makes sense to levy taxes progressively - a more efficient entity will pay relatively higher taxes. We have to ask to what extent a progressive tax is still a non-punitive monetary payment and not a punishment for success.
Although the Constitutional Court, in its case law, likens taxes to fines, it actively defends the political nature of the level of taxes and clearly declares that it is the citizen, not the court, but the citizen, through the legislature, who decides on taxes. It rejects the degressive, but in principle accepts the progressive tax - as long as it does not choke the taxpayer and does not resemble confiscation.
The aim of this paper will be to offer a perspective on the constitutional dimension of progressive taxation and to describe the limits that it would not be constitutionally permissible to cross in this context. Indeed, in the quest for social justice, we must not forget the central role of respect for property as one of the inherent pillars of progress. The state should certainly protect its citizens, but it must not rob them. The intricacies of tax legislation may be reminiscent of the mythical Sherwood Forest, but we should wonder whether and to what extent the constitutional framework allows the state to be a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor.