I think one of the pitfalls here is equating Equality with Equity - it's a pitfall many people make.
But "Equality" demands we're all paying our "equal" share of taxes, right? But, as you correctly point out, the "Rich" already do pay more than the improvished... However, whilst Equality looks good on paper, it rarely works in real world practice. Instead, we need equity.
You might have seen the below image before, but it does the best at explaining the difference... One is "Equal and Fair" whilst the other isn't equal in its means, but is equal in its outcome.
You must be registered to see attachments
How this relates to finance, is that many of the "Rich" can afford to be taxed more, whilst many of the poor can't and, as you say, many in fact don't get taxed at all. I personally can't imagine someone being against taxing the rich more - I know it's a popular position, but my head can't wrap around it - because when people throw around the phrase "Tax the rich" or we're talking people that can afford it. I doubt you fall into that bracket, unless you're Musk or Bezos in disguise. The "Rich" in most cases are the 1% - those who have enough wealth they couldn't spend it in this generation or the next. I'm sure the people of Lewd Corner range from the lowest bracket, to the medium bracket, but I'd go on a limb and say I doubt any of us enter the top bracket - I don't think we have celebrities hiding here, or millionaires hiding here, etc. Many of us can't even imagine what 1 Billion looks like, let alone how you would spend that.
You must be registered to see attachments
Ignore the "Trillion", but look at the Billion. Imagine just one of those stacks going to be distributed amongst the poor, or within a healthcare service, or with a wealthare service, or within a transportation service, etc. Now imagine that 1 Stack * x (where X is equal to the number of Billionaires in a given country). And suddenly you see just how much money could be reinvested into services that help raise others up. And it'll be argued that Billionaires do this by owning companies, providing jobs, but I think we just need to look at the landscape and see - that isn't working. If it was, we wouldn't have so many people unhomed, unclothed, and starving in supposedly "first world" countries.
As for Captalism, I'm about as Anti-Capitalist as they come, so I won't get into that debate because we'll clearly not agree (and I'm not here to argue that - different opinions are good) but, as a little extra food for thought, let me just posit to you... You mention the previous systems, right? Slaves and Sevitude, Early Fuedalism, etc. Didn't they all evolve into something else? There's a reason we left them behind, right? And each was better than what came before? Then why have we decided Capitalism is "it"?
The problem with Capitalism is that it was a great stepping stone for what we needed it for - as you say, it's served people well - but we've reached "Late Stage Capitalism" where it isn't benefiting anyone but the richest people. Those with Capital continue to gain Capital, and generational wealth is a huge problem. We're at the point where, in an ideal world, we'd role into the next system, just like the Pharoahs, just like Fuedalism, etc etc. But Wealth creates such a vast difference in power, that those who have the wealth can, and do, mainly control the system. So it isn't changing. The wealthy can buy news outlets or social media sites, the wealthy can dictate peoples healthcare, the wealthy can change laws, etc. They have power beyond human comprehension, because wealth and cronyisum are able to sway huge swathes of people.
Eeesh. Sorry. I didn't mean to go off tangent. I'm tired, I can't sleep, and this is a topic of personal interest to me.
Don't mean to jump on you and
@uncbuck having a discussion either... Woops.