>>I wish you'd consider my suggestion that they'll leave, Bill
>They didn't when rates were 90%+.
>Did Bing Crosby (once one of the richest people in the world) move. Bob Hope? Frank Sinatra?
>Clint Eastwood made some spaghetti movies, but the rest stayed here.

Their earnings relied to a large extend to "infrastructure" of Hollywood or Vegas. Dunno if Clint went to escape taxes or was lured by higher pay esp. for him or a Chianti/Spaghetti bundle

>Do you really think that those fat cats in the Hamptons or Nantucket will move if you take a billion or two away?

Yupp. Esp. if they realize that they are living off substance - then such cuts will lead earlier to reaction.

>>
>>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.
>
>Right. And therefore it's OK that billionaires pass on billions to kids who have no right to it.

It is OK they spend THEIR money as they wish. If they want to pass it on to their kids, that is no different. If you tax it more than normal wages, kids will be given "jobs" to transfer or will try other ways to escape such taxes.

Also if budget percentages reflected times of the sixties, where redistribution was a much smaller part, acceptance might be higher.