I see your logic, kind of. But if I abstract the reasoning it might be recast something like this:
Poorer citizens with unknown prospects have more to gain from the government's services, and won't mind paying 30% of their earnings for all that help.
Wealthier citizens like Bezos and Musk are already taking care of their own garbage, lobbying, education, protection and who knows what else and have close to zero to gain from government services.
I'll withhold judgement. It's certainly an unconventional argument to make in a world where
progressive tax rates are the conventional norm. But we do live in interesting times.
This is not a tax imposed by a government, though. This is a service provided by a business to another business. There have always been wholesale prices and volume discounts if you buy in larger quantities. I see many people are comparing this to a tax, why?
It's not a service, because it's not something I can elect to purchase or not purchase. I have to pay this royalty to be allowed to participate here. That is a tax. If this were an add-on service that Apple/Google offered as an add on, then it would no longer be a tax. And the dynamics you refer to might kick in then.
Poorer citizens with unknown prospects have more to gain from the government's services, and won't mind paying 30% of their earnings for all that help.
Wealthier citizens like Bezos and Musk are already taking care of their own garbage, lobbying, education, protection and who knows what else and have close to zero to gain from government services.
I'll withhold judgement. It's certainly an unconventional argument to make in a world where progressive tax rates are the conventional norm. But we do live in interesting times.