That's a fabricated scenario with fabricated numbers that means absolutely nothing. Also, rampers vs pilots has nothing to do with the current tax structure and whereas it may relate distantly to the real wealth inequality issue, it's not a good analogy.

The gist of it is that America succeeds on innovation and being a land of opportunity, which has actually been severely eroded in the past decade or so.

It relates pretty specifically with those who acquire skills and assume risks being more highly compensated than those who don’t regardless of the fact that one requires and relies on a multitude of the other.

The little guy can’t get ahead mantra is beyond tired whether someone made a video about it on YouTube or not.

Relating the fabricated scenario to real world taxes:
"Let’s says you have an idea that generates 10,000$ and you cannot do it alone. In fact you need 2,000 people for your idea to work. You decide to pay each of those people 2$ for their part while you keep 6,000$"

The workers are getting taxed 50 cents (25%), and the guy who came up with the idea is getting taxed $2,100 (35%). The government gets $3,100.

If the government raised the tax on the guy who came up with the idea to 45%, then he'd pay $2,700 in taxes and his workers would only need to pay 20 cents. 30 cents for them is huge. That's a 15% increase in their take home money. The rich guy is still taking home $3,300 when it apparently only costs $1.80 to live comfortably, in this scenario, so I'd say he's been well compensated. The only difference is now 2,000 other people now have a little more breathing room.

Consider the average HOUSEHOLD income is around $50k. How are you going to pay for your student loans, a mortgage, car, groceries, and insurance for yourself, let alone a family? That's the average American household. Not even factoring in savings, retirement, and any misc expenses. "Average" in America can't afford the basics. Now tell me the top 1% need more tax breaks. At least know when you're getting ripped off.

It's pretty hard to be innovative or start a new business when you can't even afford the basics without going underwater.

I remember in Cuba, Fidel Castro set the wages of a doctor at 2/3 of a street sweeper. The doctor is inside in an air condrioned office. The street sweeper was doing a dirty, sweaty job. Therefore it is fair doctors get paid less. What happened? Cuban doctors fled to the US.

Not understanding Economic 101 leads to your thinking.

An abundance of workers (more people than jobs), low skill set, little financial risk leads to lower pay. A lack of workers, high skill set, big financial risk taking all leads to higher pay. It is as true for the small store owner as it is for Bill Gates. Bill Gates became a billionaire. His business allowed many of his employees to become millionaires. Many of them would not have become millionaires if the had not gone to work for him, someone like him, or took risks themselves in starting businesses.

Thats all fantastic until you realize there’s a point where the idea guys isn’t going to assume the risks because his ROI isn’t worth the hassle. You essentially halved his potential profit so that his unskilled workers could take more money home. Well, they get to take nothing home when he decides not to pursue his idea and doesn’t hire them. It’s not a magical zero sum game.

As for the little guy can’t get ahead on $50k if he has student loans, car and house payments and so on and so forth....you’re right. You don’t get to have it all at once on that kind of income. But plenty of Americans will try it anyway. Financial literacy is a real thing as is delaying wants over needs. Getting ahead doesn’t occur by happenstance.

Which is why taxes should be virtually non-existent.

And this money you want to give to "poor people" ... where does it come from?

Is not this cycle artificially high levels of unemployment due to Covid? Is not a trickle better than a drought?

It really boils down to workers share of capital. When workers get too much, it looks like western civilization in 1978. When workers get too little, it looks like 2020. I would much rather have been in my prime working years in 1978. Remember when it was normal to get into a major in your 20s? And a senior captain could go new car shopping on a bi-weekly basis?

I understand supply/demand just fine and I get you're towing the line from 1990 macroeconomics 101, but times have changed. Wages adjusted for inflation have become static while cost of living has increased and productivity has continued to soar:
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap
The problem with a constant growth economy is that it's unsustainable. If we're giving out financial advice, then I recommend paying attention to the economist Peter Schiff (except he's aggressive about selling gold which is a meh investment).

If making 1600 times the average income isn't motivation, then I don't know what is.

The problem is you used to be able to distinguish yourself based on merit by completing a higher level of education. Now colleges are largely jokes (I used to take non-engineering classes just to boost my GPA because a few hours of effort a few days a semester yielded a 3-credit A) but it costs $50k in tuition alone to get a degree from a public university, most of which are funneling as many people as possible into easy, useless degrees. It's easy to laugh at them, especially when I'm sitting on a useful degree, but when THAT many people are in THAT much debt, then cue COVID... we're playing with fire, not to mention, for a big chunk of those people, the American dream is unachievable until their 40s. I just think we can do better.