> No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), I think you are being overly generous here. The fact is, if we raise everyone to

> No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), I think you are being overly generous here. The fact is, if we raise everyone to a minimum standard of living, the richest will suffer, as will even the upper middle class. Europe is a great example of this. My programmer friends over there have much less disposable income than programmers here in the states. It is strange to see them discuss saving money to buy a computer. When all my developer friends here in the states earn a minimum of $50/hr, a day's labor buys a good machine, 2 days buys you something really nice. If taxes are raised to create social programs that ensure quality of life for everyone then average quality of life will go down for those on left sides of the curve. Now subjectively, one could say that those earning 100 million a year shouldn't complain if they end up only earning 30 million a year, odds are their quality of life won't change much. (Now this largely overlooks that beyond a certain point, money becomes not about buying /things/ but about influence and power.) The decision of basically capping wealth is a decision that a society as a whole has to make though. I wonder how much this influences mobility between classes though. Right now upper middle class Americans can just save up enough wealth to branch out on their own and start a business, which gives them the opportunity to move up quit a few notches of wealth. Likewise they can save money up and invest it in various financial instruments. An extra 15% tax (to pick a number) may very well wipe out the ability for many people to save up the funds necessary to make the above movements.