> we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work ... Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essentia

> we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work ... Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essential part of a thriving economy. I don't agree: 1. Capitalism inevitably results in some people being wealthier than others. But it doesn't need to be these people. Cutting taxes for the wealthy entrenches the current wealthy people, as if they have some claim to the position. What about tax policies that promote social mobility of others to become wealthy and fill that role? Let's cut taxes for the up-and-comers. 2. If the distribution of money were flat, there would be just as much money in the world. We don't need uber-wealthy. 3. Inequality is at record levels; the economy ran fine (or better) before, when there was less inequality. 4. The same idea fueled Reagan's 'trickle-down' economics, the idea that if the government cut taxes for the wealthy then the benefits would 'trickle down' to everyone else. Ignoring the implicit idea that the non-wealthy were like serfs waiting for their feudal lords to lift them up, rather than capable economic agents themselves; and ignoring the incredibly self-serving nature of the idea; it didn't work at all (see #4). The surprising result is that cutting taxes for the wealthy benefits ... wait for it ... the wealthy. 5. Since Reagan's tax cuts, the wealthy have grown far more wealthier while the other classes' incomes have been flat - that's over decades. (The exception is the last year or maybe two of the Obama administration.) During the prior era, when taxes were much higher, middle class Americans experienced probably their most rapid period of economic growth in history.