> the more you care and provide for the society - the more you are punished for it.

Could you expand on your argument? It appears that you are arguing that income directly correlates with social benefit, which I would argue is at the very least not obvious. What is the precise benefit of say a Ferrari dealer compared to a typically lower income trade like a teacher?

> What is the precise benefit of say a Ferrari dealer compared to a typically lower income trade like a teacher?

The Ferrari dealer's value to society lies in connecting prospective producers and consumers of Ferraris. It is popular to undervalue middlemen, but without the dealers producers' skills would be underutilized while buyers' wants would go unfulfilled. Presumably the job itself is not something just anyone could do, either, or everyone would be dealing Ferraris (and the pay would be much lower); one needs a relatively rare combination of personality, skills, and connections to succeed.

The marginal benefit to society of yet another new teacher, on the other hand, is not very high. Education is not something society particularly values; primary school these days is basically a glorified day-care. Nonetheless, the role of teacher still carries a certain glamour which ensures a steady supply of idealistic applicants, despite the low wages. Whatever issues the educational system may have, throwing more warm bodies at the problem is not likely to prove any more effective than the past and ongoing attempts to resolve the issues with piles of money.

If you're approaching this from the position that a teacher "objectively" provides more benefit to society than a Ferrari dealer, despite the fact that the dealer's services are clearly valued more highly, then I'm afraid I can't help you. The marginal value, and consequently "social benefit", associated with performing a task is subjective, not objective. The closest you will ever get to an objective measure of value is the price the good or service has historically commanded in a free market, and even then all you really know that that at the point the trade took place the buyer valued the good more highly than the payment, while the reverse was true for the seller. If the seller makes a profit it means that they took materials valued at one price and turned them into something valued more highly by the buyer. In the absence of external costs, what benefits the buyer also benefits society as a whole, if only in the aggregate.

People at the top are usually getting more benefits from society, so they should pay more. Jeff Bezos's riches from Amazon couldn't exist without a vast highway network, regulated airspace, stable government, etc. A person digging ditches or picking strawberries in the central valley can do that without many of the previous benefits.

You are going to the extremes - most wealthy people don't pay taxes or pay what they think is right. Who is getting shafted is the middle class that pays for everyone and is bleeding money, because the poor enjoy number of benefits and exemptions and the rich can afford loopholes.

But all the workers at amazon pay income tax that go into that infrastructure.

> the more you care and provide for the society - the more you are punished for it

If marginal tax rates exceeded 100% you might have a point. Not to mention the implicit bizarre self-righteous assertion that income correlates directly with "caring for society". Tell that to fire fighters, EMTs, teachers, and disaster aid workers.

But I guess "marginally, the more you convince others to part from their money, the less you directly benefit from it" doesn't quite get the objectivists as agitated.

In the free society those people would have been paid as much as society thinks they deserve. In socialist society specialists must be paid much more than they deserve to offset progressive taxation and that is at the cost for less skilled workers. This increases inequality as people are not capable of getting wealthy.