You seem to believe I'm arguing for a change to the current system. I am not.

I'm not surprised you're also missing the point here. You are advocating that the current system is fine because people can pay whatever they want on top, including Bill Gates. People arguing for a different system are saying "Cool I love that these billionaires want to pay more. Let's put that into policy."

Your argument essentially boils down to "we don't need it in policy because it shouldn't be forced," right? Or is it something else? Either way, if the "extra" isn't required, then why have any of it required? Why not just have everyone pay what they want? What's the advantage of an arbitrary price point? Just price it correctly or have it all be voluntary. What's the reasoning for having only some of it voluntary? I'm genuinely curious here if you've thought this through or if it's just as shallow as "Bill Gates can pay what he wants."