I’m guessing you expected the downvotes to be fair, but I’d try and actually engage with what you said, since you clearly took the time to think it through and express it well.

What you’re suggesting (that the wealthy classes play an important role in wealth distribution, that’s hampered by tax) is pejoratively referred to as “trickle down economics”[0] and slightly less critically referred to as “supply side economics”[1].

You might want to reduce taxes on the wealthy for some other reason, but the idea that it helps the economy is very poorly evidenced, and there’s quote a lot of evidence to the contrary.

It also seems to miss the fact that a lot of poor countries (take Nigeria[2]) have very low taxation, and many very wealthy countries (take Sweden[3]) have very high taxation.

My two cents are that, sure the rich might spend some money on things that benefit everyone, but it’s probably a lot less than the amount of infrastructure development taxation can fund.

There’s obviously complexities, but the idea that “people will just move” doesn’t seem to happen in reality. I’d also say that, excluding perhaps billionaires, being moderately wealthy in a equitable society with good healthcare, transport, roads, etc, is a lot more desirable than being more wealthy in a society with less of those things. But I guess that’s just my take, I don’t have any evidence for it.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

[2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/nigeria/individual/taxes-on-personal-income

[3] https://sweden.se/life/society/taxes-in-sweden

Think you’re confusing the French Revolution (violent uprising of the French against their aristocratic rulers during the Enlightenment) with the French Resistance (Underground movement during WW2 that resisted Nazi occupation)