>>I start with the notion that the rich have excess wealth and the rest of us don't.
>>Forget all the mechanical stuff.
>>If the shared resources of the country - e.g roads, airports, railroads are in need of billions of dollars of upgrades and the government doesn't have the money it makes perfect economic, social, and ethical sense to me to take the money to fix them from the people who don't need it to live on.

I wish you'd consider my suggestion that they'll leave, Bill. Yes, some assets are tied up in real estate, plant and other assets that aren't easily transported abroad. But in 2017 it's easier than ever to move $$$$, intellectual property and other modern wealth from one jurisdiction to another in the blink of an eye. Believe me. Yes, most civilized nations have reporting requirements so that any transfer of more than $10K or so, will be looked at. But it is legal to move your own $ around. And if you tax excessively, they will. And the stock market will crash. And a few more Enrons will eventuate. And foreign speculators given the whisper in exchange for a few pieces of silver, will scoop up more of the US's wealth and use it against you.

Sorry but today's 1% is largely a boomer creation and you're going to have to let it play out now. Don't be Robert Mugabe believing that you can seize and distribute wealth and everything carries on as before.

>>Call it whatever you want, but one way or the other, they should be made to pay for them.
>>Taking even one dollar from someone making minimum wage to prevent that, in my view is unethical and unwise.

The problem is that a lot of business is allowed to sponge on the taxpayer, paying such low wages that even those lucky enough to find work still need assistance. In a decent society, business should have to pay a living wage to give people pride and self-sufficiency. This would increase retail prices- which does affect you- but isn't it reasonable to pay a price that gives decent fellow Americans enough money to live, without stacking up yet more liabilities for some future taxpayer?

>>Yes, I know that history has gone in the opposite directions.
>>Kings taxed Lords who taxed serfs in order to fund their castles and wars.
>>But those kings and lords eventually lost their lands, their heads or both.

Some did. Others remain to this day, blessed with enormous wealth that occasionally is resented but usually is seen as part of the pomp and ceremony of royalty that brings in huge tourist dollars/pounds. I can tell you that as of last month, the dreaded Ruskies hanker back to the days of the Czar and fantasize about having one back. This after generations of stripping wealth as you advocate followed by a compensating burst of unbridled unprincipled capitalism and now they wish they had a czar. No need to go through that pain to figure out that being rich is not necessarily bad as long as you're responsible and not an utterly selfish accumulator/taker.