no argument for any of that. im actually saying if youre going to shakedown rich people more than their fair share, dont give it to the government.My response is not intended to argue or counter you post.
Your post highlights a fundamental problem with the discussion on this topic.
The issue is not the fact that the ultra wealthy have a lot of money that they could spend and have all kinds of nice things. When your reach a certain level of wealth, spending or wanting is no longer a part of your mentality. I have two friends with net worth more than $1B. Both have long gotten over the fact that they have more money than they can spend. Both have set aside provisions for their families. They both share the challenge of what now do with it. How much philanthropy and to who? How much to continue to invest in their business? What new businesses can be started? etc.
The issue is about who should have control of the assets.
For starters, Bezos net worth is calculated on the stock price of Amazon. He could never liquidate and get 100% of that amount. How much he could get is a matter of debate.
Second, the wealth is not in cash under a mattress. The wealth is scattered into the economy.
The issue is how much should be left in the control of Bezos and others like him and is society better off having him control where the assets are deployed or is it better to have the government control that deployment.
There is some base amount of justifiable taxes that a government should impose. The government does provide services that are required for Bezos and others to make his billions. BTW, I believe that was the essence of the first half of Obama's remarks to Joe the Plumber and I agree with it. I don't agree with the second half that the government then has right to take it and distribute it.
I would argue that taking 28% of profits is too high. I believe that the government does too much that is outside of the scope of necessary things for commerce and the safety and stability of society. I also think they do an abysmal job with regard to prudent financial management and efficiency of services.
IMO, Warren's tax is a state sanctioned shakedown. It is not much different than than organized crime demanding a 10% vig on someone's business.
I suspect I will get the "Amazon did not pay any taxes schtick". That is another discussion.