[redpoint5]

The problem of how you capture the money is exactly the issue. Even if the top 0.01% could cover the expense, and you could somehow pass legislation to single them out as responsible for the health of other people, it wouldn't work.

Imagine you live in the US, you have phenomenal wealth, and as such, mobility. A law passes that says most of it is being seized to pay for x... you move somewhere else.

I watched a good documentary called the Brain of Bill. It touched on the anti-trust lawsuit he initially lost. I'd have simply moved my operations to another country to spite clueless officials, removing the tax income they were receiving and loosing employment (explain that one to your constituents)... it's among my worst traits; that when people unjustly hit me where it hurts most, I want them to pay 10x.

Anyone saying we'll get the wealthy to pay for something sounds exactly like we're building a wall and Mexico is paying for it. No you aren't, because they aren't going to go along with that idea.

As a tangent, I'd probably lower corporate taxes to zero, or very near to it. Economists agree that the net benefits of low corporate taxes are very good. You see, corporations never pay taxes anyhow, because their only revenue is from consumer spending. An increase in corporate taxes is an increase in the cost of consumer goods and services. Then, US goods and services become costly compared to other countries, and so our products fall out of consumer favor as we purchase ones that are taxed at a lower rate.