[saikia81]

The fact you want to keep the current distribution, without considering that it could help many people if changed is a bit ignorant. Just because (without any indication why) you feel that the ones in control are doing well. I'm not seeing substance for these arguments when based on your feelings and presumptions. I wonder how many poor people you've really interacted with.

These sentiments are popular on Hacker News. For the readers: Consider that a few out-of-touch tech people who believe that rich people are some kind of genius, and that that is why they manage money is a circular argument.

Disclaimer: I'm a successful software engineer that wouldn't mind paying more taxes, if the rich paid their honest part.

[simianwords]

I’m asking you very clearly how poor people’s consumption would change if you taxed the rich wealth?

The wealth is zero sum - you have to take away investments from Amazon etc and drive it into other places. That means Amazon will be smaller, employ fewer people and produce lesser. Why do you think that is necessarily a good thing? If you think that it is, then you can also stop the NASA program and drive all funds to poverty.

[pjc50]

You're eliding the distinction between people and businesses. There's no reason Amazon the company would have to be smaller simply because the Bezos fortune was distributed among more people. It didn't get 50% smaller or employ 50% fewer people when he got divorced and had to split the marital property.