Question

Is it possible for a Progressive Income Tax to make the Rich or the Wealthy no longer Rich or Wealthy ?

Answer 1

This is an epically retarded question.

The purpose of a progressive tax is not to accomplish your purported goal, which is laughable.  Even in 1951-1963, when the top marginal rate was 91-92%, the Rich or Wealthy were not made no longer Rich or Wealthy by the Eisenhower (R) top marginal tax rates.

It is to accomplish certain agreed-upon goals, such as avoiding crime, violence and revolution, in an effective and efficacious manner.

Redistributing poverty is not particularly effective or efficacious.

Answer 2

No.

In fact, a "Progressive" Income Tax actually helps the wealthy maintain their status by preventing other people from becoming wealthy.  This is why the wealthy (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc.) usually support "Progressive" Income Taxes (both Gates and Buffet, the 2 wealthiest men in America, have called for the top tax rate to go back to 39% instead of 35%).

The same thing is true of government regulations.  Government regulations are supported by big business because they "protect" them from competition and because they are able to control the regulators (for example, Monsanto controls all the regulators who regulate our food and Goldman Sachs controls virtually all the bank regulators).

In fact, rich people like the Koch brothers (the owners of a gigantic oil company who have funded the moderate wing of libertarianism and the Tea Party, although they are opposed to the radical Ron Paul wing of those movements) are the exception, not the rule.  What the liberals who are talking about how evil the Kochs are for spending their money on anti-environmentalism don't realize is that the Kochs could make more money if they were to lobby for regulations and purchase the regulators.  Instead, due to their ideological belief in the free market, they refrain from lobbying for government privileges for themselves and only engage in defensive lobbying to protect their company from government regulations (which is, of course, wholly consistent with their ideological principles).  They are certainly not driving the right-wing, as is claimed (in fact, the Republican Party is against laissez-faire and supports military Keynesianism or even military socialism and a strong federal government that imposes religious morality on sinners).

Answer 3

Yes, it's possible but detrimental.
 The idea is not to eliminate wealth, but poverty.

Answer 4

No is the answer I seriously doubt the rich would come in under the poverty line.