OK, I’ll take your wording exactly and in its entirety. Now I am happy.
Bull. As I have said several times, this is a math question not a “proposal” of any kind. The proposal you suggest is science fiction, won’t happen. I don’t find those hypotheticals worth asking.
The true question has been given by John Mace. See just above.
<mod>
There is a question in here somewhere.
I’m still not sure what it is.
Pliny, are you suggesting that if we confiscate the entire fortune of x number of billionares, at what point would the fortunes confiscated equal the amount of taxes paid each year?
Or are you suggesting that you’re teaching your students that the United States government should confiscate the fortunes of x number of billionaires to pay for the operation of the government, while letting x-1 keep their money and not pay any taxes?
I’ve been through this three times and I’m apparently with the majority here, wondering what you’re exactly asking.
Please clarify. I’m torn on whether this belongs in GD or not.
</mod>
The arguing over the wording of the question is over.
See the post above where I quote John Mace.
You’ll have to ask him if it should go to GD, but I see no reason for that.
Nor for any more discussion about the wording.
John Mace’s wording is now the official wording.
Glad to be of help! 
It’s just that when you introduced the word “tax” you made it sound like you actually want to know what would happen if you did it in real life. And if you confiscated BG’s entire net worth and liquidated it to run the government, you’d get an amount significantly less than what it’s worth on paper-- and no one knows what that amount would end up being. Anyway, I didn’t mean to beat a dead horse or anything, but that was a large part of what I found confusing about the OP, as written.
Well said. Besides, I’m sure Bill would understand and not liquidate but set it up as a trust. He could still have the fun of running things, still collect a salary even. But that’s another thread.
This one is done being reworded.
Look, you phrased it in terms of a tax hypothetical and asked for the underlying math. I tried to rephrase the hypothetical so it made sense to me. I think my expression of the hypothetical is pretty much the same as John Mace’s, except I phrase it in terms of federal spending, rather than federal taxes. Feel free to adjust for the federal deficit.
That being said, even if you ignore my first paragraph, I think the remainder of my post captures the solution to the math problem, except we don’t have a formula or method of determining the net worth of the people below the Forbes 400.
I’m happy with John Mace’s rendition. Let’s let it go at that.
This appears to be the correct answer.
Thank you for your calculations. They look well done and convincing.
I love statements like that. It’s really sounds to me like “Hey, that sign in the bathroom about washing your hands, that only applies to employees, right? Cool”
Err… "It really sounds to me…"
I did take econ, but I never took typing.
And I notice that the link to the Forbe’s table was not the whole solution. :egad:
Knowing that the top 400 have as much as half the tax haul is a memorable, quotable stat in itself.
From your blathering, I think this is the correct interpretation of what you’re asking, According to Pliny. Except, you never asked it. I can’t believe you ask your students such imprecise questions, because unless they’re all sheep, you’d be faced with the same questions trying to define what it is you’re asking. FWIW, I don’t see any political posturing in your posts, and don’t think you’re trying to make a point one way or the other – it’s just that as asked, it’s not a simple math question. So, is this the correct question as posed by John Mace?
But it isn’t. You shouldn’t quote it or use it in any way in this context. The net worth of a group of people should not be compared to an amount of money spent. It confuses the concepts of worth, assets, income, and money.
I hope that you do not try this out on any class, no matter what the subject is. It is not a good example of anything except confusion.
You’re not being a very nice person right now. If you want to go start a pit thread, go do it.
Otherwise, the question has been reworded and the answer has been supplied.
Yes, I know. I reworded the question and supplied the correct answer way back in post #12. I also gave a warning about the concepts you were confusing. None of which have you acknowledged.
Cross post. i was refering to Balthisar and “blathering”. But if the shoe fits . . .
Well, another cross post. Your typing is passing mine in the mail. As to your post #12, I did not think much of it, and if you’ll notice, Billdo had to do some more to get the real answer. You might learn something from his efforts. I did.
Maybe we should trusting someone who claims to be relating facts “according to Pliny” and ask the P-man himself what the deal is. 
My FINAL post on this thread is to read #41 and #49. Anything else you have to say, make your own thread. This applies to one and all. Don’t post “to Pliny” because Pliny has a life and has moved on to other threads.