In this article, I defend a procedural justification for the wealth tax, and criticize what I have called the outcome-approach. On the outcome-approach, the wealth tax is justified on the ground that it is an effective means to achieve an outcome, or a state of affairs, that we might consider just. That outcome or state of affairs would be equality. I argue that this approach leads to unjust or unituitive results, as it burdens all agents equally, being the case that not all agents should be burdened equally. This is because it ignores the history of transactions that led to the creation of taxed wealth. The procedural approach that I defend, in contrast, looks both at the fairness of transactions, and the result they have generated, and is based on the idea that the wealth tax should burden some agents more than others, depending on whether or not they have met standards of fairness in the past. Those standards of fairness are basically exploitation, oppression, and structural injustice.