> Because I am unsure where to get data on the 10,000. If you find it, I will absolutely udpdate. I just sourced an income distribution based on percentiles, y

> Because I am unsure where to get data on the 10,000. If you find it, I will absolutely udpdate. I just sourced an income distribution based on percentiles, you can do the same with wealth. > The poorest 10 million Americans likely pay a negative tax rate already (as they should). But you're right—it would. But only for one year—so that's not sustainable. If in one year less than 100 people were mildly inconvenienced to generate a major windfall and make a significant difference for 10 million people, that's already a good outcome. We could do it every year for decades and the top 100 richest people would still have billions. > Then what do we do once it's been depleted and we've gotten used to it? That would be a big tax gap that would have to come from...you and me. Is that what you want? I have some news for you: it's already coming from you and me. I pay over 40% of my income in taxes that I cannot escape from. The system has no loopholes for people like me, and that's fine actually, I want to contribute to society. However, it boils my blood when people think that because taxing the rich is too complicated, too harsh or - seriously? - would get us addicted on easy money, that those are reasons not to do it. > What is "enough"? I think we should find every way we can to tax wealthy individuals in the same scale that high-income employees are taxed.