So what you are saying is the rich should stay rich and the poor should get poorer until they are so poor thru are homeless, and all because you believe it harms the rich to pay more taxes

Those are related questions... questions that I had also... but I wanted to know if you oppose or endorse the idea of using force against peaceful people and I'd like to know if you let the victim define what harm means.

I'll try to address your question: I can look at times and places and see where I would probably have acted out. Example: Ho Chi Minh tried to address great inequality that originally stemmed from colonialism and foreign invasions in which perhaps a million people starved while paying tax in the form of rice to either foreigners or suck-ups catering to foreigners. That sounds mighty bad to me. I am not unsympathetic to you concerns.

I live in USA, and the situation for me (and for you) does not compare to the situation of the Vietnamese people from 1940s-1960s. Right now, in my context, I would prefer for people to engage in voluntary interactions. If you don't like your wages, find a new job, work more hours, spend less, get a roommate to split bills, learn some skills, start your own small business. I have done all the above rather than using force against others to take their money.

Do you agree:

1. Ethical people avoid initiating harm against peaceful people.
2. The person who gets to define the harm is the intended victim (in this case, the 1% who are going to be forced to pay for the income of the other 99%... or some variation of that math).