While I can sympathise, I shall not reduce the length of my replies and you're just going to have to suffer
I think I'm getting too deep and I'm going to end up saying something (if I haven't already) that I don't really understand or mean. But I think your second paragraph brings me back to my real point.
That is capitalism. That greed which leads people to pursue money for the sake of money - which is how the crisis and other problems occur - is the foundation of capitalism. The whole point is to conduct oneself in a way that produces maximum profit for you and your share/stake holders. Don't get me wrong, on the whole, I am in favour of capitalism. It drives innovation, wealth and therefore overall living standards - the crux of the problem is what limits society places on the companies to stop them exploiting the workforce or society as a whole. One of those mechanisms is tax. The contract would read like this "You go an innovate and develop a service/product that people want, you can then make as much money from that as possible. In exchange for that freedom and the fact that you are making your fortune off the sweat of your employee's hard work, you have to put some of that back into the pot". Remember, just because this person is at the top and earning all the money, doesn't actually mean they are doing all the work and the key to the success (think of all those inventors who got screwed out of their money or the designers and engineers who make new products - why aren't they the CEO's?). Plus the pot pays for things that helped them get to the top.
The services of the financial sector are required to fuel the capitalistic agenda - I'm still not convinced of their social utility. This is fine, but the social agenda must also be addressed and that is done through taxation. You are allowed to make a small fortune, but society has supported you and you should support it in return.
It doesn't necessarily. But if you compare two examples of how one can work hard on a project and then look at how one would work 'smarter' on that project with the aim of producing more money for themselves. That smarter approach will likely result in other people losing out in some way - either in paying people less, working them harder, charging more, flouting rules or outright illegal, unethical or immoral behaviour.
Capitalism inherently favours working 'smarter' - its the social structure of society that brings people towards a more centre ground.
For sure, if I was earning £100,000 a year (taking 65k home), my lifestyle would change significantly - I'd also be disappointed that I was losing 35k in taxes. But I also wouldn't spend all the money and claim that the cost of living was too high. I can easily afford all the basics and all the comfortable's (that's my new word for a brand new car, yearly holiday, etc.) with some left over. If I kept increasing my cost of living to a point where I kept needing more money, then the problem lies with me, not that the government is taking whatever amount in tax.
If we halved the tax and this person now had 80k, do you think they'd be saving this 15k, or increasing their lifestyle even more and begin complaining that the tax is too much?
Being taxed more is unfair, I totally get it. But cost of living is not an argument against it. Personally, if I had the money, I'd gladly pay the tax because I value the social benefits more than a flashy car.