This is a very simplistic view. It is also, strictly speaking, incorrect. You can't possibly argue that poor people consume more in absolute terms thus you mu

This is a very simplistic view. It is also, strictly speaking, incorrect. You can't possibly argue that poor people consume more in absolute terms thus you must mean as a percent of wealth. But this is not a good measure. A person in a given society will feel the need for some base level of consumption and for a poor person this necessarily will be a higher percent of their wealth than for a rich person. Upper middle class to low end rich invest money in stocks, bonds, real estate. They aren't investing in startups or the next big thing. Taxing the "hell out of some rich guy" allows society through its elected representatives to make such investments and to invest in things that society deems useful (at least in theory). It's through this mechanism that one gets the space program in the 1960s. The Hoover dam, the highway system, clean water, etc. Private investments could not possibly have produced the moon landings, etc.