Just to point out that François Hollande, when he said, "I hate the rich" during the presidential campaign, got burned for defining "rich" as someone who made more than 4000€ a month. I'd say even those making 8000€ a months are not perceived as obscenely rich in Europe.

What do we define as unhealthy inequality ? I fully agree with you that 200 k€ is already obscene, but that's not the public perception of it. Someone who did well on the property bubble, buying a 200 k€ house at the low point and selling it when prices have doubled, will be in that bracket ; and that's the case the opponents will put forward.

Even many parts of the upper middle class making that kind of money yearly are not perceived as "one of them" by most of the population. That's the arguments that have been used to push down the rates : it's normal people that are benefiting from lower taxes.

Unhealthy inequality is currently that of the upper percentile of the population, the kind of income that allows one to own large companies, etc. That's income above 500 k€, not 100 k€. It's possible to make those earning more than 500 k€ into them ; not as much for those earning more than 100 k€. And high marginal rates will be much more viable if they only hit the wealthiest ; as pointed by the Hollande polemic : if you aim too low incomes, the tax rates will quickly come back down.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by the time the tax forms are mailed out the GDP/head for the previous year has been computed.

I can see the advantages of that.  But what portion of GDP does total national wages form? Can I presume that the individuals income would be all income, including dividends, investment income, etc?

In the US we need to put high taxes on large estates as well.  As Willie Sutton observed: "Cause that is where the money is."

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."