Any fee could be considered "confiscation", so the hyperbole is not helpful. And, the fee I am suggesting, 1 satoshi/bitcoin/block, is not "huge".
It can be, but this is not hyperbole. We are not talking about $0.1 in fees when I am using the valuable and scarce block space, we are talking about percentages of the total coin for simply holding Bitcoin. It is something else entirely. Just because we call both fees, that does not make them the same.
2. In addition to the subsidy and fees, the block reward now also includes a fixed amount of 21 million satoshis. Transaction fees are still necessary, and the subsidy would continue to halve as normal.
You said your given percentage is arbitrary. If I understood your proposal correctly, you always generate extra satoshis for miners while old coins accrue "burn debt" which is only paid when they are used? Just change the description to achieve the same process, and you will see how it looks and acts exactly like confiscation. Instead of the burn happening when I spend the coin, the protocol takes them automatically away at the same rate. How is this any different? Because I am the one doing the spending and it is not automatic?
The system has to pay for itself, so fees are necessary. In my view, if some use of Bitcoin has a benefit, then a fee related to that use seems appropriate. You make it clear that there is a benefit to holding bitcoins, so wouldn't it be reasonable to pay a fee for that benefit? Why should others pay for your benefit?
Tax me for using it, but also tax me for not using it? I am not saying that fees should not be paid, I am saying that your proposal is unfair. Actually holding Bitcoin like this is more beneficial to everyone else as well as it helps support and increase the value of their Bitcoin. Simply because of that I should not have to pay more than others, we don't even have to consider any additional arguments to support it. Find a fair solution, one that is not ungrateful towards long holders.