I am attempting to make the argument on the basis of which taxation approaches would be better for the economy, the long-abused "utilitarian" argument. This eventually slides into the abyss of "greatest good for the greatest number," and then all bets are off if you aren't part of the "greatest number."

I had deliberately abandoned the attempt at going at this from a moral standpoint, i.e. that money belongs to those who have earned it, since this has made NO impression on anyone. Like I said in another post, the Robin Hood Principle* is accepted by most people as a primary, and not only do I get no arguments other than vague altruistic morality on that basis, but a lot of people aren't even capable of wrapping their heads around the concept in the first place.

Still, by accepting the collectivist premise that the main purpose of altering tax law is to serve the nation as a whole regardless of what is done to its parts, I have probably made a mistake.

No leftist will ever accept that a rich person has a right to what he owns, much less that a rich person could contribute to the economy unless their wealth is taken from them and spent as the Left sees fit.

I should have stuck to my guns.

*That is, if someone has more than you do, and you need it more than they do, it is right, proper, and moral for you to take it from them by force. Doing this on behalf of a third party, like Robin Hood, or the government does, doesn't change the basic concept, but under our current moral code, is highly praised.

A rich person who donates his own money or his company's to a cause is treated with contempt, suspicion, and a near-certainty that he has ulterior motives. A politician who gives taxpayer money away at absolutely no cost to himself is treated as a paragon of virtue and generosity. His obvious ulterior motive--buying votes, and a lust for political power--is not even noticed, much less commented on.