Your analogy Grahamm,
Imagine a pile of bricks needs to be moved. You have two people to do the work, one is 6' tall and built like a brick sh!thouse, the other is 5' tall and weighs 7 stone wringing wet.
The 7 stone person picks up a couple of bricks because that's all they can manage, staggers across to the new location and puts them down.
The 6' person picks up two bricks in one hand, strolls across and puts them down.
Surely the idea of everyone carrying the same load is what makes it fair...
I think you're agreeing me - if one is stronger, they carry proportionally more bricks.....
But, using your analogy, if the 7 stone person is half as strong as the 6' person, then the 6' person should carry double what the 7 stone person carries..... Nice and fair and balanced.
But.... What you're saying otherwise, the way I'm reading it, is because the 6' person is twice as strong, he should carry three times as many bricks - you're changing the ratio (just like my comments about 22% and 50% tax rates).
Like I said, I'm not one for the "I'm all right Jack" approach that you seem to misunderstand my comments as, I'm for everyone contributing the same proportionally. Equality for all in taxes.
But, I don't begrudge anyone who reaps the rewards of their efforts or the risks they take, why should we let jealousy rule our lives - unless the risks/efforts are from criminal activity, or cheating others - these people should have their assets seized, sold off and the proceeds given to their victims.