Capitalism + greed = too many losers. It is up to a government to redistribute wealth to make it fairer or it becomes unbalanced and over rewards the few at the expense of the many.
What you apparently choose to ignore is the fact that the government is not omnipotent, and obtaining wealth is not a simple matter of raking it all up from under the money trees.
The government doesn't create wealth and so in order for wealth to be spread among all, those who do create wealth must be persuaded or coerced into spreading it themselves, or giving up control of a large measure of it.
The government is not interested in persuading or coercing the Rich to directly share their wealth. If it was, we wouldn't see the elimination of charitable deductions being considered.
At some point the government's seizure and distribution of wealth will affect the levels of its creation.
No matter what you think of companies that are sitting on billions of uninvested capital, the situation is a response to the prospect of government seizure and distribution.
The government is sufficiently powerful to seize all existing unhidden wealth, but it is not powerful enough to then turn around and maintain wealth creation at the levels existing prior to the full seizure of the economy.
The government is also not sufficiently powerful to force all of its citizens to accept the reduced standard of living that is an inevitable result of the full seizure of the economy. This is of particular importance in a country like America where the people who will benefit most from the seizure will not see much of a shift at all in their standard of living. There aren't hundreds of millions of serfs in this country who are on the verge of starving and for whom even a small increase in living standard means life over death. What's more, seize and redistribute all of the country's wealth and America will not become a nation wherein everyone drives a luxury car, can afford to eat out three times a week, and has the money to pay for an annual vacation at the beach.
The typical response to this is likely to be something to the effect of:
"Of course we're not looking for the government to seize and redistribute all wealth!" (Although I imagine some of you are calling for precisely that)
"We just want the rich to pay their "fair share."
You can castigate the rich all day for being greedy sobs, but they don't tend to look to you folks as their moral compass, and trying to shame people into doing something is not a very effective methodology...particularly if they don't think they have any reason to feel ashamed.
Since you can't reason with them or shame them, you need the government to coerce them, and coercion will impact the levels of wealth creation.
I've heard the argument before that the rich would not be so stupid as to cut their noses off to spite themselves. They'll still try and make as much money as they ever did, or that if they ever thought of moving their wealth and its creation source to another country, what sort of patriots would they be?
Although they keep telling you, you obviously don't believe them but there is a point of economic return for them where it is not worth their while to maintain their efforts to create wealth. Maybe this is purely psychological on their parts or maybe it's just a bluff, but it's a risk you would be foolish to dismiss out of hand.
As far as the issue of leaving the US and patriotism, these folks have already revealed themselves to be greedy predators. Do you expect patriotism to trump their greed? What do they care what you think of them?
Considering that there is absolutely no reason to believe that you have all the answers and that your motives are pure and patriotic, you can count on the rich to resist your efforts. Some (the ones who never had to work for their wealth) will undoubtedly be upset that you think of them as greedy. Some may even join your movement as members of the 1% who "stand with" the 99%. They won't voluntarily give up their big houses and fancy cars though. They won't forgo vacations in Cabo so one of your kids can afford school tuition for a year.
So far, the rich have been able, with a lot of support from class-traitors who don't make 1/100th of their incomes, have done a pretty effective job at keeping you at bay, and rolling back some of your successes.
2012 will be another good test of which side has the better of it in this conflict, and OWS may just be what you need to persuade a large enough percentage of the population that more coercion to take more money is necessary.
I don’t think so, but we’ll see