Fiscal redistribution requires progressive taxation. Achieving distributive justice through other means is a substitute for progressive taxation and is core CP ground.
Omri Ben-Shahar 16, Leo and Eileen Herzel Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School, “The Paradox of Access Justice, and Its Application to Mandatory Arbitration,” 83 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1755, Fall 2016, Lexis
Finally, even if redistribution can be done more effectively and efficiently through direct fiscal means, and even if its overall goals are determined in the aggregate on the basis of some external principles of equity, one would still need to know how various legal rules and policies affect the different groups. Knowledge of their distributive effects is important so that the income tax system can be calibrated to achieve the desired level of redistribution and to correct for disproportionate benefits that some subgroups obtain elsewhere. Access justice is assumed to be egalitarian and even progressive, a substitute to direct fiscal redistribution, thus necessitating less, not more, corrective progressive taxation. But if the regressive effects were prevalent, the opposite would be true: redistributive taxes would be all the more necessary. In short, society cannot achieve its desired overall level of redistribution if it miscounts the effects of some access justice programs.