Let's stay on topic here. Obviously when there are more than 2 people interacting, it is increasingly possible that someones natural rights will be infringed on, but that isn't what we were discussing.
You said "It's silly to blame taxation for rich people not wanting to work more when half the benefit of being rich is that you can afford to spend more time engaged in leisure and enjoying yourself, which is ultimately what people are working for in the first place." I then said something about workaholics and most people who earn large sums of money are not the people that spend it, it is more often their family (spouse, children, grandchildren through inheritance) because those people are busy working due to being workaholics. You said "It's extremely unlikely I'll ever be sorry we prevented people from turning into workaholics." Then I said "whether or not you are sorry is irrelevant because it isn't for you to decide."
Your point is that you won't feel bad people work less because taxes are higher or those that earn more money, but as I stated it isn't your right to tell them they cannot earn more and work for it if they want. Punitive taxes are inherently immoral and indefensible because you are robbing people of their limited time (time does equal money). The only argument for these taxes are appeals to emotion, which are not logically valid. If you are okay with the fact that you have no logical or moral authority to support your claim that is up to you, but it doesn't make you right and me wrong.
People do not owe their lives to others. You cannot require someone be at the behest of another without them voluntarily agreeing to it, or force. Force is not a valid reason. This hasn't stopped humans using it from the beginning of humans, but it also doesn't validate it.