I guess that highlights the fundamental disconnect, which is around what the point of taxes even is.
If the point is simply to tax people until you have a more egalitarian society, then obviously it is too low.
If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use, and subsidizing everyone else by a huge margin.
I don't think there is a disconnect here. Have taxes ever been pay-for-what-you-use? I don't think so. I'd go so far as to call estimating one's use of public goods/services a practical impossibility. Say you cracked the code though and you realize 50% of the population makes less in a year, total, than they use in public goods/services, what then? There is no disconnect because that is simply not now and never has been how taxes have worked.
It isnt that radical and is how taxes worked for broad swaths of history. Income taxes in the US essentially didnt exist before the 1920's. Many taxes are still collected on a use basis today.
Simple examples are toll roads, gas taxes, permit fees, ect. SSI is closer to a use tax, but has some redistribution built in. Many cities fund infrastructure using parcel taxes, which approach per capita use taxes as well given that hey are paid by home owners, or often passed on to renters.
> If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use
Not if their wealth is being subsidized by everyone else and not via their own labor, as in that case, they are using the services of others and underpaying for it. And this goes for anyone, regardless of their amount of wealth.
If the point is simply to tax people until you have a more egalitarian society, then obviously it is too low.
If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use, and subsidizing everyone else by a huge margin.