The rich are benefited from an stable environment that they can make their wealth. It's only sensible that they pay to upkeep it.
I can see how that could justify taxation somewhere between "poll tax" and "flat tax", but nothing more "progressive" than flat tax.
If I have a hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, maybe I should pay $N. If I have five hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, that's logically worth 5 times $N.
The component of my taxes which go towards protecting my wealth can quite sensibly scale linearly with my wealth, but not super-linearly.
Why is the focus on cost, rather than benefit? To take an extreme example, if a country is overrun by a hostile power, the rich generally lose virtually all their wealth. Those on near-subsistence incomes may not notice the difference.
That's even without accounting for services such as protection of intellectual property that add far more to the incomes of wealthy beneficiaries than public education does to a lower income taxpayer.
If the government was a corporation it would be entirely logical for it to price discriminate by charging the super-rich elevated "enterprise" rates
Because your ability to make mega millions hings on the scalability of wealth making a stable society provides. It is not an individual's own ability to make huge amount of money. Without a law abiding and stable society, you won't make your millions.
If all the workers are uneducated and dumb, if all the contracts are out of the window, if all the banks collapse, if the money are worthless, if no court or police to protect your property, if no firefighter to rescue your burning home, how much millions you can make? How much are you willing to pay for those?
If taxes are considered as a cost of doing business in a functional society, it won't be contested so much.
Why do you assume counterparties grow exponentially with wealth?
This would also only apply to that portion of the tax burden associated with enforcing contracts (a very small fraction, basically just the police and judicial system).
The police and judicial system don't exist in vacuum. And where does the power of the judicial system and police come from in modern time? From the people. And what is the cost for them to grant power to such a system? A functional society that they feel supporting.
Our tax is not just funding for the judicial system so that the rich can get their properties protected. Our tax is funding a functional society that's the basis for all these.
I can see how that could justify taxation somewhere between "poll tax" and "flat tax", but nothing more "progressive" than flat tax.
If I have a hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, maybe I should pay $N. If I have five hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, that's logically worth 5 times $N.
The component of my taxes which go towards protecting my wealth can quite sensibly scale linearly with my wealth, but not super-linearly.