To me, it does seem to be quite a high threshold to apply to incomes of $1million per year or more, even though sometimes the policy will be stated in terms of ONLY applying to higher income earners, but then end up also having some onerousness on regular Joes.

Tax policies can be so confusing, and I am largely of the position that taxes need to be collected from richer peeps more than regular peeps - and surely there should NOT be disincentives to work or to gain capital, and surely these are balancing acts, especially if you believe that there are some good things that governments accomplish.  Some people are anti-tax without really seeming to have any reasons for such beyond hating the government which seems too big of a blanket approach.

On a personal level, I believe that bitcoin creates incentives for governments to become more responsible in a variety of ways, so in that sense, incentives are created to have a better society because government becomes more responsible.  But I doubt that we can have a world without government, and it seems that the more dense the population (such as in BIG cities), the more needs there are for a variety of government services.  There does not seem to be enough land for each person to have self-sustainability and voluntariness without attempting to account for various public goods, whether we are talking about roads or air and water or even questions about access to property that could be classified as either public or private depending on the structure - and I question whether removing government even resolves property rights and access matters.