There might be an ethical argument, but the "rich people have lots of options, and might leave" argument isn't really convincing to me. Recall that to avoid U.S. income tax, you must move abroad and permanently renounce your citizenship. How many wealthy Americans do you think would really do that solely due to a tax hike? Especially one that was in the range that would actually likely be passed (i.e. not 99%)?

I'm not saying they might leave. I'm saying that rich people have a good life in any kind of system. This includes being mobile.

Your point was we should take money from those who got the greatest benefit from our society. By that reasoning, people who are alive now and would have died otherwise have it the best, right? Or does that extra boat or summer house so important that it's a better benefit than living?

Listen very closely: whatever system you set up, there will be rich people. If you tighten the tax laws, the rich will be criminals and politically-connected people. But there will always be rich people. It's true in any societal construct. They will always have a better lifestyle than the average person. Given the criteria you have presented, you will never end your quest to find rich people and tax them.

Is it really true that higher taxes will lead to the rich being criminals and politically connected? My impression is that Sweden, for example, isn't considered more corrupt than the United States, despite having much higher taxes.

Rich folks are only as rich as the society they inhabit recognize them to be. Ask white Zimbabwean farm owners how wealthy they are now (only one recent example). The wealthy benefit the most - by far - from how society is structured, if for no other reason than that societal structure is what's holding them up as "rich" in the first place.

@_delerium, please read again. That is NOT what Daniel said.