>>82
I don't even know which side of the argument you're making fun of at this point. Anyway.
The population of the United States is about 310,000,000. 20% of that population earns over $100k and there are about 2,886,200 resident millionaires and 5 listed billionaire residents. (A long time ago I quoted statistics that about 90% of people who would be called "the rich" pay most of federal income tax revenue; though it's not important to my current argument, please keep it in mind.) The combined US billionaires are worth about $171.2B and let's assume the millionaires are each worth $100m each - $288.62B - and those 20% I mentioned before have an individual worth of $125k each - $7,750B. Together, $8209.82B. Even if you divide that out for every citizen of the United states that's only one check worth $26500.
$26500. If you use the population distribution used by sociologist Leonard Beeghley and only distribute that amount to the 45% working class (as opposed to "middle class;" refer to his model) and 12% lower class that's a single redistribution of
$46500. The amount of money you'd get is a one-time working class annual paycheck's worth that you could burn through easily.
Additionally, those who have these incomes have a high chance of running, managing, owning, or otherwise making internal policies for a part of whole of one of the major businesses that operates in the United States (or worldwide). For many, that business IS the reason they're wealthy and provides a renewable supply of products to other people. Removing them from the equation will either accomplish nothing or disrupt these systems that ("common") people use.
Targeting the rich for virtue of them being "the rich" doesn't accomplish anything. It'd be the perfect demonstration of a house divided not being able to stand.