GreecePwns wrote:So Mike Tyson has nothing now, which means he earned nothing in his boxing career? You just blew up your own theory right there.
BBS, of course, I'm assuming the people value their money similarly and follow some sort of hierarchy of needs (survive first, then buy a mansion). If the guy with two dollars values survival and his wealth as nothing, then of course things change. We're talking about Donald Trump and the average economic actor, however.
You're believing in a very dangerous assumption. People simply don't value their money similarly, nor do they follow the extreme example in your hierarchy of needs example. There's plenty of people who live in a small house, eat meagerly, yet pay bills for a $60,000 car. There's plenty of people who earn $1 million and choose not to invest their money wisely.
For example,
And before this becomes a flat tax proponent argument, taking $500,000 from a person with $1 million to his name affects said person less than if you were to take $1 from a person that has $2 to his name.
It depends. If you take $500,000 from that person, then most likely his current means of living would have to be adjust--but to what degree? We don't know. And how would taking half of his income affect him? We still don't know. The shift could be totally devastating, the feeling of being robbed has unknown effects, etc.
The same applies with the guy with $2. He could some guy living on the streets, and he has his $2 for, let's assume, a 40oz of Olde English at $1.69. With the $1 taken from him, how do you think he would react? And then, how do you compare that reaction to the richer guy? We truly don't know.
Anyway, what's your main point?
