"More people use the internet in China than in the US" - whether that's true depends on the interpretation of "more". This is intolerable and everyone with a mathematical background should strive to be clear on which "more" they are using.
He is arguing for a relative more, the starting point at which is specified as the current state.
1. more in absolute terms (which they already pay due to higher income) 2. more in relative terms (progressive taxes) 3. more than now (what you claim).
I don't that it's clear what he means in in the story, though. It could easily be taken to mean "yes, we pay more, and we should pay more (than others) so I don't support the republican plan!". Your interpretation is also valid - "the rich should pay more (than we do now)".
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/bill-gates-taxes-cnn...
"I need to pay higher taxes," Gates, who is worth over $90 billion, said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday. "I've paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes," he said.
That first sentence sort of simplifies the interpretation.
I was comfortable eliminating 1 based on it being part of a well established status quo. An article about Bill Gates having expressing that opinion would have me pinching myself. And, 3 umbrellas 2.
When we start in this state:
rich pay 10% on the margin poor pay 2%
And then cut all tax brackets by 1% absolute (to 9% and 1%)
This can be portrayed as both "most gains from the cuts go to the rich (because we were super progressive initially!)", and "poor get relative 50% cut, rich 10% (at the margin)". Anyway, I just am trying to guard against future misinterpretation and mixing up of absolute/relative terms.