> So now leaves the question, what does this report look like?

You can slice and dice the data how you like. Again, exactly how we currently do it with income data.

> Who's having these discussions? Certainly not the entirety of the political landscape is involved.

The entire political landscape is involved, as evidenced by your comment that you want lower taxes.

> You want to know what people make and own so you can determine how much tax they should pay, and if they're paying enough.

This is literally the goal of progressive taxation.

> We all know the left wants more taxes, the right wants less, and the majority of the moderates are siding with the right right now.

Polls show overwhelming support for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

> OK you missed this one completely so I'll walk you through it a bit more.

$1 doesn't have any inherent value by itself. The value of a dollar is determined by what you can exchange it for. $1 in 1921 was significantly more valuable than $1 in 2021 - you could buy a lot more with it. This is called inflation. As long as inflation remains relatively low and predictable, it doesn't really matter in the abstract whether something costs $1 or $10 or $100 (if inflation rises quickly, that's another story of course!) There exists a metric called the Consumer Price Index which measures this inflation, and therefore the value of a dollar across time. Income tax bracket cutoffs aren't increased over time in order to raise more revenue. They are increased in order to raise the same amount of revenue after adjusting for inflation. But again, this doesn't mean anything, because inflation theoretically increases the price of everything - wages, prices, etc.

> Or put more simply, when 100% tax is implemented, and we need more, what happens then?

The United States had a top marginal income tax rate of 80-90% for most of the period 1950-1980. The United States economy grew much faster during this period than the period 1980-present, when top marginal tax rates were much lower. The point isn't to implement a 100% income tax. It's to make the tax system more progressive, which enables further investments in education, research, and health care, which fuels growth.

> So how did the US become the greatest nation prior to high taxation?

By most economic measures, the United States wasn't the strongest country in the world until the first half of the twentieth century. Some of the reasons for that include lower levels of inequality with respect to education in the late 19th century compared to most European nations; the earlier implementation of progressive income taxes compared to those nations; greater investments in education compared to France and Germany (and especially the UK) that led to higher per capita productivity; not suffering as much economic damage from the two World Wars; etc.

> How come high taxes was literally the trigger that started the rebellion?

The revolution had nothing to do with high taxes (taxes were very low, in fact - see https://taxfoundation.org/taxation-representation-american-r...). It had to do with unfair taxation. And that's exactly what this whole argument is about: the wealthy pay unfairly low taxes because of tax havens and an inability to properly tax wealth.