What I am trying to disagree with, is the notation that it is unfair if high-earners and very-high-earners hand the same proportion of their wealth and income over to the government.
My take on the wealth-cap is that it isn't about fairness at all. Actually I think it would be mostly unfair, but that it would be good for society anyway. Fairness is an important value, but it is not the only value.
No need to bring the poor into the discussion. Of course they can't afford paying an equal share of their income as someone with average or above average income.
In the grandparent post I was first replying to, the poster stated that they were in the highest tax bracket that existed in their country, but said there should be more brackets for people who were even more well off.
My opinion is that it isn't unfair to the top 1% that the top 0,1% have the same tax rate, even though they are richer.
I do think it is unfair if the bottom 25% have the same tax rate as the top 25%.
You and I differ on the meaning of "fair" then. With regards to taxation "fair" is often taken to mean "what one can afford".
I think it's safe to say that those with over $100M will still have a plenty of dosh left even at a much higher tax rate than someone living paycheck to paycheck.
If tax revenues are seen as a pie chart—sliced based on contributions from the wealthy and the paycheck-to-paycheck, moving away from a progressive tax system means the poor will be asked to contribute more, the wealthy less. That seems like the opposite of fair to me.
I mean, quit being so poor then, I guess?