I think she is trying to raise the point, that both she and all the others should be properly taxed - and that would be fair and just. Achieving that would in fact notably help people.
A single person giving away 72M$ will not make a difference.
* - there are more poor people and there are few wealthy
The number of poor people doesn't matter -- only how much large their total pool of cash is to extract from.
My first guess was that "scrooge mcduck wealth hoarding" made you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder, but good to see you're ruling out the strawmen early.
Congrats on knowing the phrase "straw man" though, even if its not applicable in this case.
-- InternetHippo on Twitter
Of course there are reasonable arguments that shareholders are treated preferentially to labour in our economy and that that's as bad thing, but the basic premise of "the wealthy people have all the stuff so let's take their stuff" is just class warfare, not a reasonable argument.
> not a reasonable argument
It's only "not a reasonable argument" if you mentally substitute how cartoonishly huge, rich, authoritarian, etc. Bezos and Amazon actually are with a mom and pop shop or a guy who owns a single factory.
That is, the format of your money is irrelevant to whether you can be taxed more for it.