too rich?

[Tiberius]

That was your statement, but now you are saying when you used the word precedent in it, it was not about tax?

No, but my statement about abuse was about precedents in general. I was saying, if you give the government a precedent to do something (in this case, to take money from the rich whenever they want just because "they have it, we need it"), it will get abused. The tax is not causal to abuse; the tax is the effect of abuse.

The word 'Tax', Can be used to mean many things it does not always imply governmental tax. You have chosen one interpretation.
Whatever you have chosen my words to mean does not affect what I have written. However your insistence that my words only have one meaning depicts somebody who may be unable to draw multiple meanings from a text. As such; why I should lower the language of my text to the seemingly basic level of your understanding?

Look, I understand that there are multiple interpretations of the word "tax", but you cannot seriously argue that you were meaning it in the way "it is taxing to do X" when you used the word tax in the context of "20%" and "money". When the word tax is used in the form "20% tax" and you are talking about money, it is obvious that the speaker is talking about a government tax. If you didn't mean that, you should explain what definition of the word "tax" you were using. This is getting silly; you have been asked multiple times to state your definitions. Your continual refusal to do so only confirms to me that you can't answer the question because you realise that using the word "tax" as you did was the mistake.

That you want to turn what I am talking about into an argument about government rather than a thread about the issue of inequality is testimony in-itself of a pronounced bias.

Because I'm trying to understand what you wrote, and you're being increasingly confusing by accusing me of reading into it too much, whilst simultaneously avoiding telling me what you actually meant.

The sort of bias which tries to say the following statements are not contradictory.

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

No, I will not alter my text because you lack the ability to understand it, or wilfully don't want to.

They are not contradictory. "new tax" =/= "precedent". I have already defined what the precedent is, and explained that the "new tax" is actually the effect of the precedent (and the abuse), not the other way around.

As I pointed out earlier I can use the phrase 'Walking up the stairs taxed me'.
As an old Englishman I use the term tax not just in governmental contexts. I do not see why I should alter my usage. My language is representative of my culture, the culture I was brought up in, and that is the way I am going to carry on expressing myself.

I've told you before, that definition of the word "tax" makes absolutely no sense in the context you gave it, which was:

"it would only take a 25% tax on 100 people to end extreme poverty"

Yes, there are multiple uses of a word, but you cannot simply switch them around and still have something make sense. It's like saying "there were scales on the fish", which one immediately assumes that "scales" means fish scales, and then turning around and saying "no, I meant weighing scales". Only in that case, the sentence still makes some sense (you can put scales on a fish). Your sentence is very specific about a "25% tax" and clearly involves money. There is no way that the word tax in the sense "it is taxing to do X" makes any sense in that context.

It is taxing to have to say the same thing over and over again. I am taxed by it. It is a taxation on my time and even on my money as I am paying 50% towards an interweb connection to carry on this argument.

So, the 25% tax on 100 people is on their time? That really doesn't make sense either.

So there there is this massive inequality, that OXFAM reported.

Agreed, and I never disagreed on this point. I disagreed on your use of the word "tax", and I still do. Explain your definitions.