In terms of extracted cash? Given that the top 1% now-famously have more funds than the bottom 90%, taxing the wealthiest will definitely make more of a difference.
The number of poor people doesn't matter -- only how much large their total pool of cash is to extract from.
You really have to squint to get the idea that the 1% have more money than the bottom 90%. In reality, they own businesses that are valuable. You couldn't liquidate all their stocks and end up with their paper net worths in your bank.
If you start a company and that company is successful, you will be worth a lot of money through your ownership of that company. Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No.
> Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No.
My first guess was that "scrooge mcduck wealth hoarding" made you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder, but good to see you're ruling out the strawmen early.
Assets are taxed. If your money is 100% illiquid, you’ve done something dumb. You prepare to liquify to settle your taxes yearly — if the taxes are higher, you liquify further; the equation isn’t changing.
That is, the format of your money is irrelevant to whether you can be taxed more for it.
It may be irrelevant for taxation purposes, but not for narrative purposes - there's a pervasive "the rich people are hoarding all the money" narrative that just isn't true. I'm pretty ambivalent on the tax front. I think UBI might be the way to go but I wouldn't say I have researched enough to say it'd work as intended.
The number of poor people doesn't matter -- only how much large their total pool of cash is to extract from.