That's because you were making no sense. Proportinality is what you want it to be seems to be the gist of your arguement. If you are paying 5% of the tax on a larger income than I'm paying 95% of the tax on you seem justified in saying it was abusive to you.
I don't see how I could make this any clearer. The position that you are arguing - that a tarrif (or anything for that matter) - can't be proclaimed abusive by those who it affects the least is a non-starter, isn't it?
It seems I've provided ample corralaries to disprove this, but you keep on. Let's look at your example further.
Example 1:
The congress passes a law that those with incomes above $30K have to pay 95% tax, while those under the limit pay only 94% tax. According to the Non-Seq theory, the 94% rate is, by definition, not abusive.
Example 2:
Let's say that our no-longer-constitutionally-bound government decides that, instead of socialist ("progressive") distribution of taxation, it is going to choose something completely random and, thus, more "fair." It goes on to implement a law that anyone who's last name that begins with "L" is going to pay 95% income tax for 2004, with others paying 5%. Each year thereafter, a letter will be drawn out of a 'lucky lotto' machine to choose which last-name-letter gets to pay 95% while the rest pay 5%.
So, by your "logic," any action by those who have a last name beginning with "M" is completely unjustified.