I don't think that's necessarily true - if it were not for government services, Jo(e) Billionaire could hire a private security force - but most people rely on the police. JB could travel by helicopter - most people rely on roads. Etc etc.
If there wasn't mandated education there would be far less efficient workers for the rich for their businesses. Which would mean their output would suffer.
Not having good public transportation infrastructure would mean there would be a higher cost of freight within a country thus cutting into profits or driving prices up.
In my eyes, the rich benefit far more from a society's systems than the poor do and thus should be paying more into making it better.
Since you don't specify whether you mean 'more' in an absolute or relative since, I'm assuming you mean that people who earn more should be taxed more aggressively.
As has already been pointed out, a flat percentage tax does a good job of 'taxing the rich more', but many seem to prefer a progressive taxation, which is to say, almost the opposite of what we have now.
As it stands, income taxes inflate as your income rises, which seems to be progressive taxation. For the life of me, I don't understand how this seems fair to its advocates, but so be it.
That the top 1% benefit from greater tax loopholes makes sense (doesn't necessarily mean fair) in a lot of ways, but aside from the fact that they've bought a lot of legislation, the nation depends on the top 1% as much as they depend on it.
