It's *NOT* altruism. It's offering a return on investment to stakeholders and an investment in goverment to help ensure favourable geo-political, economic climate, and delivery of services (water, power, etc.).
It ought to be a self-realization that as one of these top-tier people, you wouldn't have two dimes to rub together without the low end buying your increasingly pathetic wares and (no) services. That would be altruistic or simply just a willingness to give something back to stakeholders.
As it is, to fatten your bottom line you've unemployed the Americans for slaves in China or some Asian-Pacific paradise, or imported them. To fatten your bottom line you've begged the government to help you negotiate a deal with a foreign nation or taken advantage of a new economic pact. You're not doing all that much, and probably didn't do all that much to start off in the scheme of contribution to humanity. You've just become a successful snake-oil salesman (from Gates to Sheen to Woods) while watching your money make more money. Or you're a lawyer suing some industry for some windfall judgement that'll pay you $50,000 per minute in legal fees. Or some "esteemed" member of government.
Once again, BY DEFINITION, this is not an investment, which imples a voluntary commitment of capital. Anyway, confiscatory tax rates are not required to ensure the things you listed. It is only when the government gets into the business of redistributing wealth and buying votes that it becomes necessary to raise rates to higher levels.
Ahhh, a Clintonian euphemism for taxes.