[thaumasiotes]

> Take an absolute extreme of society: one person has all the wealth, and everyone else has nothing. Obviously, that one person will pay 100% of the taxes, and everyone else will pay 0%.

Only if the only taxes are wealth taxes. You're in a discussion about income taxes.

[speedplane]

> Only if the only taxes are wealth taxes. You're in a discussion about income taxes.

wealth = income - consumption

In the U.S., we tax all three: general income tax, consumption tax (e.g., sales tax), and wealth tax (e.g., property tax). Taxing any one has an effect on the other, and a discussion about one is relevant to all others.

[dragonwriter]

> wealth = income - consumption

No, income - consumption is net increase in wealth. Those are all flows. Wealth is a stock. Wealth taxes are periodic taxes on the value of the stock, income taxes are taxes on the flow.

[speedplane]

> No, income - consumption is net increase in wealth. Those are all flows. Wealth is a stock. Wealth taxes are periodic taxes on the value of the stock, income taxes are taxes on the flow.

You're introducing periodicity, which I did not have in my simple model. Maybe a more complete model would be:

  Wealth_N = Sum {i=1 to N} ((Income_i - Consumption_i)*CapitalGrowth^(N-i))

Where N is some period like a year. Here, we can tax wealth, income, consumption, or capital growth. Regardless, it's silly to think of any one in a vacuum when considering tax policies.