I'm amazed at what kind of reasoning lets you sleep at night.
but if half the ideas you present were to be used, the system in question would collapse around itself.
You forgot to add "...and I base this conclusion on... absolutely nothing."
Anyway, here, let's make it realistic now.
If someone takes home $50 million a year, and he spends $48 million of it and saves the last 2 million, why do I care?
If a rich person after taxation has $50 million a year, he will spend ~$2 million on necessities (food, clothes, electricity, heating etc), further ~$12 million on luxuries (3 new cars, new jacuzzi, 2 new villas he will visit once), he will save up ~$2 million as savings (or invest normally), he will spend ~$3 million on charities, just to be thought of as good, further send ~$24 million to his other rich friends through bets, favours, phony investments, buying politicians/lobbying for his income source, and finally remaining ~$7 million on travel and other expenses. And that's an actual estimate.
Now try and see how much do the little guys get.
From the $2 million spent on food or clothes, well I'm guessing he's rich so he only buys the rich and expensive stuff, so after taking away the profit margin (the rich restaurant owner/etc getting over 50%) you're left with the not-so-poor chefs getting some as wages, and even less for the the poor people who actually cultivated the food (wheat/vegetables) or made the clothes (maybe even from sweatshops overseas).
$12 million spent on luxuries, still profit margins are very high, so the people who actually MAKE the things or who make the parts get less than 15% of the price of the product (and that's being optimistic), while the rest goes again, to the CEOs and company owners/shareholders who are mostly made up of millionaires like him.
$3 million spent on charities will most likely go to the ones that need it almost entirely.
from $7 million of other expenses about 30% will go to the actual workers, the rest going into the pockets of oil companies or companies hiring the workers.
And lastly, from the $24 million, next to none will go to the little guys.
That is how it works, the lower you are in the chain of wealth and power the lower % of the sold product/service goes to you. The employee in Ferrari factory will get a measly couple of bucks per hour, the Ferrari salesman will get a % of the price of the car he sold, and the company owner will make the biggest profit there. And I won't try to say that it shouldn't be that way, cause this is normal, this is how rich people are and stay rich, by getting more money.
If the rich guy had $10 million less, well, he won't stop eating, heating his house or the like, so the amount he spends on things that actually go to the little workers will not go down significantly. Charity may go down, though unlikely. Most likely he will cut the $24 million spending on the "rich club", which wouldn't go to the poor people or workers anyway.
But comparing to 1000 people, each spending $50.000 a year, now these will spend in total even more on the basic needs than that one rich guy. And they will be buying second grade necessities cause they cannot waste money on unnecessarily expensive stuff. They still contribute more to the MAIN LINE products and services.
Let's not discuss how much goes to who for a minute, and ask yourself this:
How many people make a living packaging some cheap crap in a factory?
How many people make a living providing some basic services, like a cashier at the store or a janitor?
How many people make a living producing food or cultivating plants in general?
And now compare to how many people make a living by giving massages to rich people?
How many make a living as butlers for rich people? Or maids?
How many people are limo drivers, or private jet pilots?
You will see a disparity there, MOST of Americans earn their living by providing products and services to the other non-millionaires in the society.
Now since the amount of wealth in a country can grow, but it's getting redistributed unevenly to the rich, poor people are getting poorer and rich are getting richer. Poor people can afford less and less, decreasing the demand while the rich can afford more and more buying more of what they need.
This makes people in those most populated sectors lose jobs due to unnaturally low demand, and they have to try and find ways to get to the sectors where demand grows. A farmer cannot become a jet pilot just like that, so they end up unemployed.
THIS is the problem here. There should be poor and rich. In a capitalist economy there HAVE to be rich and poor. The problem is the growing inequality between the two groups. And seeing that there are a LOT more extremely poor people than extremely rich people, you may want to start asking yourself where will that lead to.
That's exactly what this
graph is all about. You need to have reasonably even income growth in all income groups to have a stable and sustainable economy and population.
So stop trying to cry and argue that we hate rich people, cause we don't and that argument is ridiculous. All people here who are "discussing" things with you simply agree that the current state is unbalanced, unstable and heading in the wrong direction. And that ideal wealth distribution would have benefited EVERYBODY (hence it's called "ideal", or "model distribution").