[mangodrunk]

They are still paying more for the same services. What if I went into a restaurant with you and the charge 10% of the amount of money you have in your wallet if it's less than $1,000 and 1% if it's more or equal. You have $50 so you pay $5 but I have $1,000 so I pay $10. How is that fair to me? We got the exact same meal. If anything it's unfair to the person who pays the most regardless of the percentage.

We all benefit from a stable government and economy. I don't see how one using it more efficiently should be punished.

[Djehngo]

In terms of currency value they are. However if you assume that the relationship between money and utility follows a sigmoid curve: in terms of utility it cost them far more than it did you.

[wnight]

What's the chance though, that the rich person in this scenario got rich way by doing what the poor person did but better/faster? Pretty low I think.

Likely they applied for a patent on some obvious technology, or invested in a company that did, like Amazon, and are essentially being given that poor person's tax money to support these government monopoly grant.

Ditto anyone rich from resource extraction. Our laws give the resources to the people who currently own the land, despite that our countries really hold all land in trust for future generations (see the right of eminent domain). You can be rich off public resources simply because you siphoned them off via a tiny chunk of land you hold while turning a blind eye to any environmental problems you were causing.

When the rich actually, in general, contribute a tenth as much or work a tenth as hard (mentally or physically) as the poor, dollar for dollar, what you said may be valid. And there are some who do, but in general, riches come from exploitation, and until this is corrected it's got to be handled at another level (like income taxes, etc).