I think it does matter. Let's assume Musk paid $12B. How much have you paid? Isn't it then actually reasonable to say that he contributed more than you to the country, even if his tax percentage is lower than yours?
If you talk about taxes percentage-wise, you make clear that the super-rich do not pay their fair share, that they will get richer faster than everybody else and, the most important fact, that long-term stability might suffer, because the bigger the divide between rich and poor, the more civil unrest follows.
Well, this is partisan / ideological stuff at this point. I'm only pointing out that the super rich can get away with paying very little in income and capital gains taxes. What's a fair share for the super-rich really depends a great deal on how they got rich (with corporate welfare?) and how much value they have added to the country and the world. And what the tax code should do about it is yet another story. I'm not even remotely advocating for some unrealized capital gains tax or, really, anything of the sort. If anything I think what's unfair and unwise here is that dividends get taxed as income twice (once at the corporation, once where received), which incentivizes reinvesting so as to grow a company's valuation [so as to grow its owners' net worth]. We might have more rich-but-much-less-rich people if we didn't double-tax dividends, and that would [probably] ameliorate the balance of power in the country.
Lots of citizens pay zero in income taxes (because their income is low), are they also not paying a "fair share?"
That’s your definition
By your definition if someone works 40 hours, after taxes they should have the same amount as someone who worked 20 hours.
That doesn’t seem fair to me
I'm less concerned about the definition of fairness and more concerned about real human suffering.
Then your priorities are misdirected. The US Govt grabbing a few extra percent of billionaires' income would not reduce human suffering in any way.
If anything, the ultra-rich have been far more effective than governments at improving impoverished human lives by setting up charities and using them to directly send money to poor regions around the world, enabling clean water and food and basic health services.
Saying there is no objective definition of fairness and then calling out the unfairness in your idea is "extreme internet Libertarianism"?
No, it's just common sense.
If I scam you out of $100 and give $40 to charity, what have I "contributed"?
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1086367432957...