too rich?

[Tiberius]

I will be impressed with rich people donating when they are donating everything they don't need. Not a single person in the world has needs which require millions, or billions of dollars. It is, of course, one's own right to keep as much as they want, but when you're a billionaire, you can afford to donate far more than 50% of your wealth.

You should read about the Giving Pledge more. A lot of the people who have signed it are pledging to give away 99% of their wealth.

What government? There are national governments, but as far as I know there is no world government, so who am I suggesting forcibly Tax?

Any government. Again, your use of the word "tax" suggests you want government(s) to forcibly take the money from the rich.

I don't think most people do much for others unless there is encouragement. The encouragement could be positive, but it can also be aggressive.

Tax is not aggressive encouragement. It is a form of forced payment. If it was encouragement, people could say "no" to it and wouldn't find themselves in (much) trouble. If you say "no" to tax, you will get prosecuted by the government, or you will have to leave the country. When your two options are "pay up" or "leave the country", it is a forced payment.

Seriously? You think that the bailout means that banks can never ever fail again? You are the one being daft, my friend.

Where did I say that? I did not!

You said: "The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft."

This was in response to me saying setting a precedent of "taxing people when we need money to do something" would lead to the abuse of the precedent, such as bailing out companies that were "too big to fail". To say that the banks have been bailed out, and a change would lead to it is daft, you are suggesting that it could never happen again. It doesn't matter if the banks have been bailed out; they can fail again, and when you set the precedent of "let's tax people more to pay for stuff", there is no reason to think the government wouldn't use an additional tax to bail out the banks again.

If you didn't mean it that way, then please explain why it is "daft".