I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.
I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year.
"Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe.
So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument. Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation. This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though.
Not at all, I'm just noting that "Super Wealthy" refers to assets, not income.
And no, high income doesn't "should lead to high wealth."
And I'm not advocating for stealing from anyone, that's strictly you, the commie, that is taking from anyone you can slap a label on to justify the taking.