in case you were reading and already replying to what I wrote, i made a meaningful edit with net negative/very little. My bad on that one. Sorry if I put you down the wrong path on a reply!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, and excuse my completely made up numbers, this is just an example and they have no bearing on what actual values might look like.

You're saying that not taxing the ultra rich means were losing out on a hypothetical $100 billion dollars a year. That $100 billion we lose out on, doesn't make up for the $10 billion they spend, and it never catches up. If we taxed them more, we'd always come out ahead.

And you're right, and thats why we should raise taxes and close loop holes. Trickle down does not work.

Further, of that $10 billion they spend, you're saying its a net negative adds very little to the economy.

I'm just not convinced thats the case, and if there are (edit decades of) studies out there that say this is the case that have no relation to how we should tax them more because that would be better, I'd be curious to see it.

If they just all hypothetically vanished, and the world moved on without them and that spending stopped, the economy would notice it. Again, it wouldn't be this catastrophic thing, but it would be noticed.

Edit: Actually to be fair, net negative isn't right and wasn't either of our arguments, "very little" is more appropriate. My bad on that one.