@WandererUber I had to go to my computer to answer this because it's annoying to type so much on my phone.
The OP's purpose is to highlight that the nature of the current government is completely misaligned with things the average person cares about. In this case, the average person is upset that wealthy people pay less taxes as a percentage of wealth than they do. I am making a statement that the government could do something about this as at least one method they use to avoid taxation is well known and easily identifiable, but they choose not to because it's not actually a problem they want to solve (even though people care about it). In fact, floating suggestions like an asset tax is just a method to get lower income asset holders nervous about ANY potential changes.
That was the scope of the OP. Now we're asking questions about what is good or bad, which falls outside the original scope. I'm gonna try to be as explicit as possible where I can be.
The first question is "is it bad that wealthy people aren't paying more taxes?"
Yes.
I believe it is bad that the wealthy have successfully insulated themselves from the people they are meant rule in the benefit of.
"It's better the government also has the money? They're also hostile."
Yes.
The point of the OP was highlighting that the (hostile) government ignores the issue because the (hostile) wealthy are in league with each other. If the government did actually target the wealthy in ways that really hurt them financially it would imply there was some disruption happening. This is way into hypotheticals now, and I'm not trying to present this as a "hopeful step forward." Just that in the even that chud's law has already been violated (government targeting the elite class) that this would be some kind of an improvement, insomuch that ANY change in the current status quo could be construed as an improvement.
"We can't lower our taxes but we can increase there taxes?"
The point of the OP was to make the case that the government has the ability to tax this class of people, and opts not to do so. A primary assumption here is that no, the government cannot lower spending therefore lowering lower/middle class people's taxes to be more in line with wealthy people's is not possible.
Conversation spiraled around this point because I made an additional point that the wealthy class in both insular and hostile, so making them feel the effects of their hostile behavior could disrupt their insular nature. The point I think you're making here is that if you have the power to do one you have the power to do the other. I don't actually think this is true. From the current status it seems to me that increasing taxes even marginally on the moneyed classes is easier than lowering them. Stuff like this already happens to a degree, which is why people even talk about wealth flight.
