More like suicide. Too many of the anti-wealthy are in fact wealthy themselves...they just believe they are more benevolent than the others or hide their wealth aka. Charlie Rangle style. Of course nothing happens when they get caught. Pay it back and all is forgiven.

To answer your question, of course having someone toil with little or no compensation is slavery.

Slavery wouldn't have been slavery if the slaves could have legally moved to Canada. So, no, it wouldn't be slavery.

Slavery is a pet peeve of mine and I don't like the term being used for anything other than real actual slavery, which remains a real phenomonom in parts of the world and risks being underestimated if people start thinking of less severe cases as "slavery".

They can move to another country. They are free.

It would be oppressive, but it would be very different indeed from real slavery.

I wrote about slavery here:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/344720/The_Arab_Empire_and_Slavery

In the article I mention Francis Bok, a former slave who fled Sudan and now lives in the US. If he hadn't been a slave and could have moved to the US legally, he would have been in the same situation as a 1%/100% candidate envisioned in the blog post.

I.e. if he hadn't been a slave, he would have been like one of the 1%/100% people.

The danger you describe is real and it would be oppressive and could still be sold as "fair" to the sort of people for whom "fairness" is the idea that other people work for free. But slavery it is not.

Slavery

• bondage: the state of being under the control of another person

• the practice of owning slaves

• work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay

Lets see

under the control of another person - making people pay 100% taxes, sounds about the same

owning slaves - the banks, auto companies, maybe even insurance companies in the future - sounds about the same

harsh condition - busting you butt just to give all your money to people with a track record of mismanaging money that will give it to people who did not earn it and also have a track record of mismanaging money, sound about the same too.

Well, according to that web dictionary, one could say this is in a sense slavery.

Edit and update:

After reading leauki's comments I agree the word slavery should not be used in this manner as it could water down the true meaning of the word and therefor water down any effort to stop it.

When one owes money to another he in fact, is a bond slave to that person or entity until he's free and clear of any debt owed. 

So maybe in the example offered here we could say that the 1% would be oppressed in this country much like slaves were slaves in the south until they got out from under their masters and escaped to the North, then they were no longer considered slaves. 

Right now we are in bondage to Russia and China especially because of the debt owed.  They are not exactly friendly towards us.  How does that make you feel? 

Who in their right mind  goes into debt bondage with an enemy or a potential enemy? 

Recently China has come out with a new program.  They are actively seeking to buy as much U.S. debt as they can by allocating great sums of money to do so taking advantage of our limping economy. 

So it really doesn't matter about the 1% because in all reality we are all enslaved by the massive debt owed to our enemies and it's only going to get worse.  We are so deep we are not getting out of this one.  If China and Russia decide to collect, knowing we can't pay what is that going to mean to the rest of us? 

Slavery doesn't leap out at me as a fair definition, I would probably run with something like extortion.

No, not if those people had a choice about whether they worked. If they were forced to work at 100% tax, then there would be a case for slavery.

Edit: Your OP is slightly unclear to me though - are these people taxed at 100% of their marginal income above a threshold, or do they lose all their income? If they lose all their income, then how would it work, since they could just work less so they weren't part of the top 1% (in turn lowering the threshold for entering into the top1%, potentially down to 0)

Not slavery. They could choose to move, lower their taxable income, etc. Oppresive, but not oppression.