Yes it’s a marginal rate but at some point, after someone has earned enough, for every dollar they earn the government is going to take 70cents of that dollar to spend as they see fit. If the person does not pay they will send around cops with guns and the threat of violence to take that money or put that person in a cage for not paying taxes.

It’s not about how much money you have to live on it’s about other people claiming a right to money you have earned.

The government doesn't just spend it how they want, we have a system where it is collectively decided.

That means you have to follow the law whether you agreed with it or not, it's how democracy works.

Yes, the collective (the government as elected by the people) decides how to spend other peoples money. That is not a moral justification.

This is how democracy works. But if collectively a people democratically decide to do something that doesn't make it morally correct.

You do have to follow the law, but what I'm saying is that we need to consider the moral implications of the law being suggested.

The moral implications are important. That's why it's a marginal rate being proposed in the USA, only on income over 10 million.

Taxing higher rates on much higher income amount is morally better than taxing that same rate on a lower income.

This is because of the impact it has on the earners well being. Income after 10 million has a much lower impact on that persons well being than say, their first 1 million.