This message was self-deleted by its author

[whopis01]

107. And all those billions in stocks, munis, or a simple interest savings account will not be touched by

a progressive income tax rate of up to 90% on income that is not invested in job creation.

The key word is "income".

You are correct that there is an economic benefit to the buying of luxury yachts. The money spent on such things is not removed from the economy. However, neither is money which is collected as taxes. It isn't as if the government just collects taxes and then removes that amount of money from the economy. Government spending on things such as infrastructure, health care, research, eduction all put that money back into the economy. Just like a billionaire buying a yacht, there is an ongoing economic benefit to the spending.

So we can agree that the purchasing of goods and services has economic benefit regardless of whether it is done by a billionaire or by the government, right? So then what is the point of the progressive tax? It is to limit the rate at which wealth disparity increases. It doesn't eliminate wealth disparity. It doesn't stop a billionaire from accumulating more wealth. It doesn't take away wealth that is already owned. It merely scales the difficulty to generate income based on the amount of income that you already have.