This question is always strikes me as a false dichotomy, i.e. "we have to tax them, or else they leave". The issue is in my view is that constructing a system where the existence of such a rich class has become necessary to raise enough tax revenue. Organizing your country with more sustainable growth where income disparities aren't so high means you don't have this problem to this extent.
Who said "we have to tax them, or else they leave"? That doesn't seem to be what anyone is saying. The issue is that this group is threatening to leave if they are taxed.
I agree you should want to avoid having an income disparity like this, but we are where we are. The goal of this tax is to help correct that disparity.
Then the next question is why does wealth, in practically all industrious countries seem to distribute disproportionally and not uniformly?
One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
> Then the next question is why does wealth, in practically all industrious countries seem to distribute disproportionally and not uniformly?
Compound interest, and as (admittedly) an armchair economist I buy into the argument that goes along the lines of:
"when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth".
In my view, r has been greater than g for some time now.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
To me, it is clear that while Europe optimizes for quality of life to a large extent, Americans really drink the coo-laid and enthusiastically optimize for shareholder value. I highly encourage you to give life in Europe a go at some point. I hope you'll return (or stay) also having reached the same perspective.
> One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Luck always plays the biggest role. Maybe the billionaires would have always been successful in some way, but not be a billionaire or even a millionaire.
Also, your argument sounds like a just-so story designed to support the status quo.
> the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Is is really a good idea to be ruled by the people with the greatest "wealth attraction?"
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
Yes, because regardless of anything else, the wealth imbalance has been politically destabilizing. Your comment strikes me as out-of-touch quantitative thinking: making certain easily-measured numbers going up the highest goal, while ignoring other things that are harder to quantify. That's a blind spot shared by a lot of people, especially tech people.
Not to be too glib but my mom would ask counter questions like this:
Why is it that we have to trim out nails when they grow? Why not leave it natural?
Why do we remove the weed in between the pavers in our backyard? Why not let it be natural?
The fact is the world around us needs constant work. Our capitalism is no different. It needs constant pruning or it becomes gluttonous. There was a book I think which said most people involved in illegal drug trafficking are barely getting by, most of the income is soaked up at the top. I don't remember the point the bio was trying to make but it feels like that way for any enterprise these days.
The richest people in the US have reportedly increased their net worth by over 1.5T over the course of the last year or so.
I think there's clearly a question of envy which doesn't seem addressed.
I'm not particularly in favour of high taxation, but I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. The general point is that "the ultra rich" are able to benefit from a whole host of loopholes which allow them to pay proportionally less than the plebs.
Now, this specific point seems somewhat debatable, judging by the fact that people don't seem to agree; I personally have not looked into the matter to form an opinion.
Maybe our tax code hasn't kept up with the financialization of the economy. In any case, this whole tax increase thing, at least as I see it in France, since to spill over to "regular rich people", as in engineers or similar who "just" have a relatively high salary.
Another issue, which I think is different but is rolled into complaints about rising tax rates is what the state actually does with the money. As in "I'm ok with paying tax, but not to fund this or that thing". In France, specifically, many "public service" offices have closed, having people either travel great distances or fight half-assed computer systems, while, at the same time, the number of public servants (so, cost) has increased.
You could have asked the same question when slavery was legal. Why is slavery not evenly distributed. Social injustice has been the default since the beginning of known history. Social justice is something that has to be fought for.
Look for the Sugarscape model research studies. With uniform equally distributed starting point, fairly unbiased rules, and a set of random early wins, large disparities tend to accumulate over time without active policy to counteract it.
Because a tree has better access times than a list, so some amount of hierarchy results in a better performance than unstructured set of individuals. As directing people means more available work force for ones goals, and money represents ability to do something and availability to resources, some people will have more money than others.
There's many shades of grey between financial laissez faire and enforced equality. This entire "taxes are theft/unnecessary" (and frankly extremist in the neutral definition of the word) thinking is destroying the US politically and socially right now.
Do you not see this? Probably because you don't feel it in your pocket (yet, let's see what happens when the USD crashes. I will feel it too, no doubt.)
There's the belief that the economy can be a mighty tool to improve our lives, but isn't it going pretty much overboard since some time? Is this materialistic growth-at-all-costs ideology really making average US lives better these days?
From the outside the US feels like a runner that is stretching its arm towards the finish line (total automation) while also falling on their ass.
> One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed
That's not an argument, it's a completely counterfactual assertion ... or rather, the assertion that this is the cause of uneven distribution of wealth.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
But of course it's not true, it's just an attempt to justify a morally bankrupt sociopathic ideology.
Countries with low inequality tend to have strongly progressive taxation systems — Belgium, Sweden, Finland, etc. The billionaire class isn’t a necessity, it’s a failure of morality to overpower the affordances of hyper-growth capitalism.
>Organizing your country with more sustainable growth where income disparities aren't so high means you don't have this problem to this extent.
Sounds like US vs Europe. Having redistributive policies funded by taxes works well until your most productive people flee for a country that doesn't, and you steadily lose ground to competitors economically.
Americans like to act like they've beaten European nations in some kind of battle, but is the purpose of a state not to provide the highest quality of life, safety and health to its citizens? Not try to make the biggest corporations? In which case, even taking the whole of Europe as an average (which you shouldn't), by every metric beyond GDP its ahead.
The thing is that Europe doesn't have much redistribute policies. Everyone at around lower rank manager or middle developer are landing in the highest tax bracket in most of the countries, and pay as much tax as rich people. And almost every tax raise is usually targeted at these barely middle-class people.
Taxing billionaires isn't "necessary to raise enough tax revenue." Total personal income in the U.S. is 26 trillion annually: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-income. For the most part, that's real money that reflects goods and services in the real economy.
The increase in wealth of billionaires in 2025 was $1.5 trillion: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires-1-5-trillio... Most of that isn't even real money--it's people betting on AI. (As an aside, is the government going to give huge tax refunds when the AI bubble bursts and all that "wealth" disappears?)
If the U.S. just taxed people the way they do in Germany we could raise trillions in revenue without resorting to tricks like one-time wealth taxes. The focus is on billionaires because Americans want a German-style welfare state without German-style taxes on the middle and upper middle class.
Countries in which the income disparities ARE so high are also the ones where the "poor" are the richest. They just feel poor in comparison not in absolute terms.
70K a year is poor in California, but top 1% rich in almost any country in the world.
Low income disparities are countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Armenia to name the first three with below 30 GINI income.
This is an anomaly and left over from the time when middle class was growing after the 2nd world war. We (Western countries) are dismantling all the back stops and the process will reverse and move all the wealth to the few rich people in the capital class. When this process is complete the poverty levels in the west will equal those of the countries you mentioned, Afghanistan etc.
The USA and UK are leading the process since they started to pursue this goal aggressively during the 80s with Reaganism and Thatcherism.
And this is exactly why nominal $ amount comparisons are completely pointless. Someone who makes $70k in southern or eastern Europe is living like a king (or living at least good life anywhere in Europe) while someone making $70k in expensive parts of California is going to struggle.
Wealth is equal to your share of the overall resources, $ amounts are just an abstraction.
This made me research how much taxes would a wealthy californian pay assuming:
- 2.5M worth of real estate bought recently
- 1M of job income
- 1M selling shares that 10xed (some stock option idk)
- driving a 150k $ car
- spending 150k $ over the years in taxable goods
It came around 840'000 $ or around 40.1 %.
I wouldn't say it's that bad, this even includes sales taxes (probably the fairest of all taxes).
With even basic tax optimization (401k, federal deductions) you get that number down to 780'000 $, with something a bit more sophisticated depending on circumstances you can get it easily lower than 600k or 32% ish.
The biggest problem is that people above that tier end up effectively paying less sometimes even in absolute terms just by borrowing against their equity and not triggering taxable events.
Honestly taxes are complicated to implement, I'm not sure how can you implement a progressive yet fair system without loopholes and without severely degrading services (roads, infrastructure, education, healthcare, military, etc, etc).
And every time you decide to cut on services, you are just moving money elsewhere: more inequality -> more social tensions and criminality, you just end up paying way more to live in a safe place and pay for private and public security and prisons.
I agree with your overall point. But I find it odd that you consider sales taxes to be the "fairest". Similarly, I find it odd that you put "progressive" taxes in some tension with "fair" taxes. Folks in the highest income range arguably benefit the most from govt services (e.g., infrastructure, defense, R&D, rule of law). They also have a much higher ability to pay well beyond basic survival needs. And, they can reduce sales tax burden by saving versus consuming, a choice that is not available to lower-income.
I agree that a regressive tax like sales tax is not "fair" at all.
I had a coworker that argued for a flat tax—considered that fair. I explained that anything less than a progressive tax was going to make the poor pay more and the wealthy pay less. Really, that's fair?
You should be so lucky to have enough that you're in the highest tax bracket.
> And every time you decide to cut on services, you are just moving money elsewhere: more inequality -> more social tensions and criminality, you just end up paying way more to live in a safe place and pay for private and public security and prisons.
There's no reason to think that the amount of taxpayer-funded services in a political jurisdiction has inversely proportional relationship with amount of crime that that happens there (nor any particular relationship with what kinds of crime, how serious the specific crimes are, and so on). Same thing with social tensions - social tension are caused by a lot of things, many of which aren't particularly related to the raw amount of taxpayer-funded services that exist. Would a more redistributive welfare state have made the partition of India between (mostly) Hindus and (mostly) Muslims less likely, for instance?
I’m assuming they think that rich people spend more so they pay more. This is a fallacy, because poor people spend a higher portion of their income (over a 100% a lot of the time).
It's funny, because sales tax is considered among the most regressive form of taxation we employ from my understanding, which is supported by my econ friends. But I'm certainly not an economist.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -Anatole France
I can't say how much such a person should pay in taxes, but it is kinda funny that I'm paying the same amount 39.5-40% with my five digit salary and no property.
I don't know who should pay what amount, but I'm pretty sure that me and that millionaire should have different tax brackets. Let alone people with tens, hundreds of millions or more.
PS: I'm in EU, not USA, but here I'm in a highest tax bracket so the point still stands, my tax rate is the same as for any local millionaire. Maybe even more, since those people are aggressively utilizing tax loopholes, shell corporations and offshore tax havens.
You pay the same proportion, not the same amount. 40% of 1M is 10x more than 40% of 100k.
Disregarding all technicalities about what proportion people actually end up paying after performing clever tax planning.
Why are you sure that someone earning 1M should have higher proportion of their income taken away than someone earning 100k?
At some sufficiently low level of income I think it stops making sense collecting taxes, but beyond that I'm not so sure from a fairness-perspeective.
I could perhaps get on board with a hard cap on wealth, for preserving democracy. It is dangerous to have single individuals and families attain too much power. But up to that cap, I don't see any inherent unfairness or inefficiency in that people of moderate to high wealth pay the same proportional rate.
The overall idea with VAT is that you are taxed when you buy things
The reversed-VAT is the idea that you are taxed when you earn money (not "income" as in "salaries": every time some wealth are earned somehow)
Fixed rate, money's origin is of no concern, nor is money's usage
Say, you have a 40% tax on everything (using the same rate is important):
- your company sold random stuff: you keep 60%
- you earned money from interest / investment / etc: you keep 60%
- income from your job: you keep 60%
- a gift from your uncle: you keep 60%
- inheritance: you keep 60%
- exchange some money between your companies: you keep 60%
- you borrow something: you keep 100% (it will fall back to 40% tax if that borrow is transformed into a gift)
- you earned something of value (non-money gift), in one form or another: you have to pay 40% of its value
The root of all evil is the thinking that tax are made to make "a better world", that it is a tool a (social) justice or whatever
But it must be the same for everybody. Because only then it can be simple. And the more complex it is, the more loophole you have ("whack a mole" style as we have today)
Now, one person could keep all his money. Is it an issue ? No ! First, because he would have been taxed to 40% already. And then, because everybody dies someday. And that day, 40% of this person's riches will be retrieved: which would, again, be nice to the society as a whole: it would damage multi-generational wealth (while not void it).
Even Georgism style taxes will face the problem that if the tax is high enough, it will be worth hiring some really smart person to figure out how to work around it.
Of course, you're also going to have to face the problem that representative democracy includes the ability to buy loopholes.
And then, there are unintended consequences because representatives aren't necessarily the most financially savvy. I'm thinking about the 401k program that disproportionately advantages high income people when it was touted as a savings route for middle class people.
The 401k statute didn't actually grant any additional abilities to people: It set limits on a tax dodge you could already do. If I'm a CEO at $MEGABUCKS, and I make vastly more money than I need each year, I'm paying in a high tax bracket. I could instead strike a deal with my employer: cut my pay in half, and then keep paying me after I stop working here (pausing payments if I get another job), until the difference between what I would have made and have made is eliminated. All perfectly legal. But what I've done is taken money that was destined to taxed at a high tax bracket, and deferred it into a lower one (by spreading it across multiple years).
401k identifies this loophole and sets limits. Setting contribution caps, limiting withdrawals until retirement, etc. Then they incentivized offering it to the poors, too, because working out an ad-hoc agreement like that is the sort of shit only really high power people in a company have the opportunity to do.
In short, the primary purpose of 401ks wasn't to benefit the middle class, it was to slightly reign in the rich.
Sales tax is one of the most UNFAIR, being a flat tax, it affects people in indirect proportion to their wealth (poorest hit hardest, proportionately).
This is the only counter argument, and in fact the consensus is that they are the fairest (they tax consumption rather than production, we tend to tax producing wealth more than spending it) if you offer rebates or lower them on essentials (bread, milk, eggs, healthcare).
They also have the effect that everybody has to pay them, including tax evaders, tax loophole abusers, criminals with undeclared incomes, etc, everybody has to pay it.
But yes, without offering sales tax rebates or with taxing essentials then your argument is true and they become less fair.
Albeit, the elephant in the room is always the definition of fairness itself.
Selecting the precise threshold where a marginal point kicks in is pretty funny, though I'm sure you didn't intend it. Above a million there's also the MHSA tax. Marginal at over a million is 50% or more unless you optimize.
This doesn't seem quite right. Even using SmartAsset's income tax calculator for a city in California, I'm getting around a 45%+ tax rate for someone making one million a year of income.
It's actually pretty easy to pay an 80%+ tax rate in California if you consider taxes that your employer pays, sales tax (11%+ in some areas), local assessments, capital gains tax, etc.
I'm quite sure your calculator is very basic and stops at 401ks and little more, there's stuff like mortgage interest, being married with kids, backdoor roth, etc.
But yeah, wouldn't change the number you said dramatically, maybe it would lower it to 45%ish on a 2M income.
I mean Capitalism's solution to labor movement is to create company towns and using scrip to prevent it's workforce from freedom to leave. Maybe we can apply similar Capitalist principles/established solutions in this scenario?
I also like the idea of sales taxes over income and especially wealth taxes for a number of reasons.
1. It limits the opportunities for the government to use force on the general population. Today, if you do not file your annual taxes, men with guns come and put you in jail. A sales tax does not require this level of enforcement to be inflicted on the average citizen.
2. It's voluntary to a degree. Today if you don't like what the government is doing and want boycott paying taxes you cannot practically do so because of point 1 above. With a sales tax you can decide to defer unnecessary spending as a form of protest.
3. In theory it's vastly simpler to reason about and plan for. The myriad of tax advantaged accounts that have proliferated over the years in the US is daunting: IRAs, 401k/403b, 529s, FSAs, HSAs, Trump Accounts, Roth variants. We ask citizens to best guess how to allocate investments between these vehicles for goals decades in the future. If you need emergency access you're often looking at paying penalties. Not to mention the poor user experience baked into many of the designs. 401ks put the burden on your employer to restrict your investment options to their curated choices and their chosen plan administrator. You have to leave your job and roll it into an IRA to finally have the freedom to pick your own investments and who you have the account with. FSAs have the annoying use-it-or-lose-it rules. 529s are bizarrely state sponsored but you can choose a plan from any state. Like your state's plan but want to have the account at your broker? Too bad, you have to use the administrator your state chooses.
4. It's widely understood that if want less of something you should tax it. By taxing income and wealth it discourages work and saving. A sales tax discourages consumption instead, which encourages saving and is also pro environmental.
5. Changing asset allocation is free. Today, changing investments in a taxable account, where there are gains, triggers a taxable event. This discourages the movement of that capital to other investments.
6. In theory it's harder to dodge taxes as the simpler system has less loopholes.
7. On average, people with more wealth should have more expensive lifestyles which translates to them paying higher taxes.
I understand the arguments that sales taxes are regressive, let rich people dodge taxes by living frugally, etc. I accept all that may be true and I'm ok with it. Many seem fixated on using the tax code as a mechanism to level inequalities, as if that were its primary function, and a sales tax doesn't advance that goal enough for them. I think I can accept that some people are going to be vastly wealthier than me and are going most likely live a much easier life because of it; much like I can accept that some people are going to much prettier than me, taller than me, less genetically disposed to certain medical conditions, have been born to better families/circumstances and those things can all provide significant advantages in one's life.
How about instead of taxing them any differently than now, we prevent them from borrowing against their assets? Force them to sell their assets and pay capital gains.
Or better than that, loans backed by assets above some "jumbo" threshold ($10M?) triggers a capital gain on those assets in the collateral.
So if you get a $150M loan off of your amazon shares that on paper are worth $150M, but you paid $100M, you have a cap-gain of $40M, and at 20% tax, $8M fills the IRS's coffers.
This is something I've been in favor of for some time.
Obviously the tax basis in the assets would also be stepped up by this action.
The US should also get rid of the step up in basis at death. The recipient of an illiquid asset such as a family business should have a period of time (perhaps five or ten years from the triggering death depending on the type of asset) to "pay up" the tax basis "to market" at the time of death. Gains in liquid assets (such as publicly traded stock) should be taxed at the market value at the time of death by the estate or trust and passed on to beneficiaries with that adjusted tax basis.
Something like HELOCs would certainly be an exception.
The point is to disallow people who make a man's yearly salary every 60 seconds from getting <2% loans against an asset pool that would take hundreds of years for the average American to amass, if ever.
This makes more sense. I hate when people talk about taxing the “net worth” of some rich guy when a good part of that net worth is locked into invested companies who are (hopefully) being taxed already.
The borrow scheme should be the thing being taxed really, because is a shadow realization of profit (they are borrowing against the current value of their assets)
If the OECD decided collectively to tax them there is no where to leave to. They decided on a minimum global cooperate tax, then they can do that same for those 1%.
Of course there are still countries where one could park their money outside the OECD members but many of those are not exactly a "safe" place for such assets.
Hasn't this already been tried numerous times in numerous countries already? Didn't France attempt it multiple times without success and actually lost tax revenue with the creation and enforcement of the tax? Not to mention the wealth flight?
IMHO "this seems to be building up" in the US is a bit of an overstatement.
Mandami, AOC, and Sanders are the laughing stock of much of the electorate in the US. They are fairly popular in progressive population centers but not elsewhere. There have been activists promoting much the same ideas for my entire life (and I'm not young!) and they rarely if ever get national traction.
The "silent majority" in the US is just that - they don't make the news because they, in most cases, don't go out and protest and engage in battles with law enforcement. They have jobs, go to work, go home to their families, and vote - but they rarely are seen in the news any more than the fact the sun came up in the East and set in the West yesterday is "newsworthy" enough to be promoted in the media. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the criteria for being newsworthy.
The silent majority, also know as the banality of the evil, is waking up.
Until masks and Musks we're taken off this year it was possible to pretend that the normal would play into their hands, as long as they stayed silent and played along.
Now pretending that the middle class can survive under the zillionaires Reich is only possible for very delusional minority.
My hunch is that Mamdani and Polanski have struck this nerve. Already before the events in Minneapolis, but now the support for this is dwindling.
I've done some experiments here in the normal and even the well off people are seeing the root cause. And it being the narcissist individuals holding godlike power, instead of the good ole "rule based" or "value based realism" or "systemic change" or even the latest "superorganism".
But remains to be seen, I might be wrong or even worse the power can be so centralized to zillionaire cliques.
Billionaires tend to have multiple properties in multiple states/countries. This is more a residency issue and probably low friction for them to change states personally. The thing holding back would be where their business and employees are located.
That figure is highly misleading to cite by itself because the high tax rate also came with a bunch of loopholes and exemptions. That's why despite the drop in the headline rate of 70-90% or whatever, the actual tax take as % of GDP has remained remarkably steady in the past 7 decades.
This chart shows total tax receipts as a percent of GDP, which doesn't seem to address the poster's contention that historically the rich paid a higher share of those receipts through elevated marginal tax rates.
The tax system is made with large incentives for all business owners (from billionaires to small businesses to shareholders like retirees) to invest all profit into expanding their business.
If an owner takes out profit, they are punished with high income taxes. So they reinvest in their business, and this is what the government wants because it creates jobs, innovation, products and services, and tax income.
So they've been doing what they have been forced to do by the government. And as a consequence their companies are worth a lot.
Now the government wants to tax them on the company value?
The double irish, single malt, capital allowances for intangible assets.
If everyone would be able to play these tax avoidance schemes I'm sure society would collapse. For big players these are easy schemes and somewhere this untaxed wealth must be recaptured. Just favoring the rich further accelerates the wealth imbalance.
>If everyone would be able to play these tax avoidance schemes I'm sure society would collapse
Would it? Or would it just shift demand around? I mean the money is still there, and I don't see any reason the entities with money would lock any more of it up in a "static" manner (e.g. gold bars and piles of cash) than they do now.
That of course depends on what you mean by "society".
But everybody is able to reinvest profits into a business they have, whether that's an industry giant, or a tiny one-man shop. There is no government on planet Earth which considers that to be "tax avoidance". Governments want profits to be reinvested and not paid out to owners, even the most socialist governments you can find.
If you're against this, then you shouldn't talk about taxes. You should rather talk about abolishing private property completely.
Ultimately, an economy is all about the side effects you describe (goods and services for the population). The fact that, while producing these side effects, the machine also leads to massive wealth accumulation among a small number of people is another side effect that basically has nothing to do with the core tasks of the economy. The question now is how to evaluate this additional side effect. If it does not have any negative consequences, it can be ignored. If it does, it should be counteracted.
It's like in a combustion engine. Oil has to be added for the engine to work. But over time, dirt particles, metal abrasion, soot, and combustion residues accumulate in the oil, overwhelming the oil filter and reducing its lubricating ability. If you don't reset it to a “healthy” basic state at regular intervals, it gets so bad that it prevents the engine from operating and ultimately even destroys it.
Does the massive wealth inequality we see today cause problems that lead to the erosion of society itself? I would say yes, definitely. Of course, it is frustrating for these people when the money they have generated is taken away from them. But let's look at it realistically: if someone has $100 billion and $99 billion is taken away from them, they are still in a situation where they lack nothing financially.
At some point, you've played capitalism through to the final level. And then you should put down the controller and go outside to listen to the birds chirping instead of frantically chasing after the growth of a number that, due to its sheer size, no longer has any concrete meaning, apart from the fact that there may be two other people whose numbers are bigger or who are hot on your heels.
> Does the massive wealth inequality we see today cause problems that lead to the erosion of society itself? I would say yes, definitely.
On a side note. Yes, the massive wealth inequality is eroding society. But billionaires aren't the source of this problem. They are outliers, freaks if you so will.
The real problem is the massive wealth inequality is the gigantic prices of real estate and rent, created by the monetary system being based on real estate instead of productivity. That means it is very hard for a person to claw and scratch her way to equality if they're not born with real estate or gets that benefit at an early age. For most, their irredeemable mistake in life was choosing to be born in the wrong decade.
At the same time a huge percentage of the population who has never made any effort in life and generally have no talent or any admirable qualities, get great wealth and comfort by having been born at the right time.
For every billionaire there is a a hundred thousand of the kind of person described above. Most of us have them not far away, and they have a hundred fold bigger impact on our lives than any billionaire. And at least many billionaires have at least accomplished or done - something - in their life.
> At some point, you've played capitalism through to the final level. And then you should put down the controller and go outside to listen to the birds chirping instead of frantically chasing after the growth of a number that, due to its sheer size, no longer has any concrete meaning, apart from the fact that there may be two other people whose numbers are bigger or who are hot on your heels.
Wouldn't building a rocket to go to Mars for example be such an endeavour, which is bigger than chasing the imaginary dollar number? Or the philanthropic endeavours of other famous billionaires? Or even exacting political influence in the shadows, which is probably something all known and unknown billionaires do?
Taxes are often used as either incentives or disincentives for certain behaviors. Examples of incentives are the Child and Dependent Care Credit and EV Tax Credits. An example of a disincentive is a Mansion Tax.
When a significant share of the taxes you pay are mishandled or lost to fraud, yes it is a punishment.
That's been happening for a long time in the US. Staggering military industrial complex. Tens of billions lost in COVID relief. Billions lost in Minnesota due to unchecked privatized social welfare fraud (which has been known about for a decade).
Some mistakes will happen. What we have is unacceptable. If the government can't handle the money responsibly, it has no business collecting the money.
> Now the government wants to tax them on the company value?
I’m genuinely baffled at the incredulous tone here. Yes, that is exactly what should happen: laws, subsidies, and incentives enable a company to grow and flourish. Then, as the company grows, other laws incentivize it to give some of its state-sponsored affluence back to benefit the country.
Like, sure, the execution of that process is often dysfunctional, but the fundamental contract there does not seem like it should be surprising to people: we don’t have (many) socialist state-owned businesses, but the point of a functioning country is still to provide good things to the people living in it. Not to benefit businesses or a tiny sliver of the population.
That’s why we have everything from income taxes to interstate highways: to distribute wealth and resources to (a flawed approximation of, but it’s still the goal) everyone in the country. That’s just how non-corrupt governments are supposed to work!
Then why not tax the military? They are surely the most affluent company of them all, if you take a tally of all their inventory.
If you tax companies based on their size rather than their profits, then you're not going to have any big companies. Any investor or entrepreneur would be a fool to invest in making a big company.
But many endeavours need big companies and big investments. For example power plants. That's a whole lot of value to tax, such affluence! Better redistribute this wealth, and instead have a hundred thousand non-affluent hot dog stands.
> That’s just how non-corrupt governments are supposed to work!
In practice, every government in the world does not tax companies reinvesting their profit into growth.
Arguably these and billionaires have become a social menace. They undermine democracy, destroy our environment, and prioritize shareholder value over long term well being of the economy they live in.
If they all had unified in one voice against the administration, Trump might be more constrained. They might not be so hated. If they realized, like Henry Ford, that a strong middle class actually is good for THEM too, all this could be avoided. Instead they’re showing up at Melania screenings while average citizens are getting shot in the streets.
I don’t think they realize the fire they’re playing with my stomping on the social contract that made them so wealth.
But the pitchforks are coming for 12 years already. They got accustomed to the sight and even put some measures to redirect the masses so they fight each-other.
I just googled confused what a "Melania screening" (Thought it was like a sort of security screening, maybe all the ICE is messing with my head) is. First time i heard about the Movie. This feels like one more step the Trump fam. took to become some sort of celebrity-king thing.
>Arguably these and billionaires have become a social menace. They undermine democracy, destroy our environment, and prioritize shareholder value over long term well being of the economy they live in.
Sadly, I'm far more worried about a thousand people who make a million bucks than I am about one guy who makes a billion.
You don't get to the B number by not being pretty darn shrewd and sociopathic so those guys must be pretty evil but man have the "upper middle class" or "professional managerial class" or whatever you wanna call the "comfortable enough to not think about the harsh economic realities of their ideas" class been an unmitigated disaster for western society over the past 20-70yr depending on how you wanna measure.
Readit News
I agree you should want to avoid having an income disparity like this, but we are where we are. The goal of this tax is to help correct that disparity.
One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
It's simply because money is compoundable. The more money you have the more you can make, and the more you make means less other people have.
Compound interest, and as (admittedly) an armchair economist I buy into the argument that goes along the lines of:
"when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth".
In my view, r has been greater than g for some time now.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
To me, it is clear that while Europe optimizes for quality of life to a large extent, Americans really drink the coo-laid and enthusiastically optimize for shareholder value. I highly encourage you to give life in Europe a go at some point. I hope you'll return (or stay) also having reached the same perspective.
Luck always plays the biggest role. Maybe the billionaires would have always been successful in some way, but not be a billionaire or even a millionaire.
Also, your argument sounds like a just-so story designed to support the status quo.
> the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Is is really a good idea to be ruled by the people with the greatest "wealth attraction?"
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
Yes, because regardless of anything else, the wealth imbalance has been politically destabilizing. Your comment strikes me as out-of-touch quantitative thinking: making certain easily-measured numbers going up the highest goal, while ignoring other things that are harder to quantify. That's a blind spot shared by a lot of people, especially tech people.
Why is it that we have to trim out nails when they grow? Why not leave it natural?
Why do we remove the weed in between the pavers in our backyard? Why not let it be natural?
The fact is the world around us needs constant work. Our capitalism is no different. It needs constant pruning or it becomes gluttonous. There was a book I think which said most people involved in illegal drug trafficking are barely getting by, most of the income is soaked up at the top. I don't remember the point the bio was trying to make but it feels like that way for any enterprise these days.
The richest people in the US have reportedly increased their net worth by over 1.5T over the course of the last year or so.
How is this sustainable?
I'm not particularly in favour of high taxation, but I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. The general point is that "the ultra rich" are able to benefit from a whole host of loopholes which allow them to pay proportionally less than the plebs.
Now, this specific point seems somewhat debatable, judging by the fact that people don't seem to agree; I personally have not looked into the matter to form an opinion.
Maybe our tax code hasn't kept up with the financialization of the economy. In any case, this whole tax increase thing, at least as I see it in France, since to spill over to "regular rich people", as in engineers or similar who "just" have a relatively high salary.
Another issue, which I think is different but is rolled into complaints about rising tax rates is what the state actually does with the money. As in "I'm ok with paying tax, but not to fund this or that thing". In France, specifically, many "public service" offices have closed, having people either travel great distances or fight half-assed computer systems, while, at the same time, the number of public servants (so, cost) has increased.
Deleted Comment
Do you not see this? Probably because you don't feel it in your pocket (yet, let's see what happens when the USD crashes. I will feel it too, no doubt.)
There's the belief that the economy can be a mighty tool to improve our lives, but isn't it going pretty much overboard since some time? Is this materialistic growth-at-all-costs ideology really making average US lives better these days?
From the outside the US feels like a runner that is stretching its arm towards the finish line (total automation) while also falling on their ass.
That's not an argument, it's a completely counterfactual assertion ... or rather, the assertion that this is the cause of uneven distribution of wealth.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
But of course it's not true, it's just an attempt to justify a morally bankrupt sociopathic ideology.
Deleted Comment
Sounds like US vs Europe. Having redistributive policies funded by taxes works well until your most productive people flee for a country that doesn't, and you steadily lose ground to competitors economically.
https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occu...
The actual question is: "If we tax tax them, will they leave? (losing the planned tax revenue/backfiring)"
It is pretty easy to avoid state taxes - just move to a different state.
The increase in wealth of billionaires in 2025 was $1.5 trillion: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires-1-5-trillio... Most of that isn't even real money--it's people betting on AI. (As an aside, is the government going to give huge tax refunds when the AI bubble bursts and all that "wealth" disappears?)
If the U.S. just taxed people the way they do in Germany we could raise trillions in revenue without resorting to tricks like one-time wealth taxes. The focus is on billionaires because Americans want a German-style welfare state without German-style taxes on the middle and upper middle class.
70K a year is poor in California, but top 1% rich in almost any country in the world.
Low income disparities are countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Armenia to name the first three with below 30 GINI income.
The USA and UK are leading the process since they started to pursue this goal aggressively during the 80s with Reaganism and Thatcherism.
Wealth is equal to your share of the overall resources, $ amounts are just an abstraction.
- 2.5M worth of real estate bought recently
- 1M of job income
- 1M selling shares that 10xed (some stock option idk)
- driving a 150k $ car
- spending 150k $ over the years in taxable goods
It came around 840'000 $ or around 40.1 %.
I wouldn't say it's that bad, this even includes sales taxes (probably the fairest of all taxes).
With even basic tax optimization (401k, federal deductions) you get that number down to 780'000 $, with something a bit more sophisticated depending on circumstances you can get it easily lower than 600k or 32% ish.
The biggest problem is that people above that tier end up effectively paying less sometimes even in absolute terms just by borrowing against their equity and not triggering taxable events.
Honestly taxes are complicated to implement, I'm not sure how can you implement a progressive yet fair system without loopholes and without severely degrading services (roads, infrastructure, education, healthcare, military, etc, etc).
And every time you decide to cut on services, you are just moving money elsewhere: more inequality -> more social tensions and criminality, you just end up paying way more to live in a safe place and pay for private and public security and prisons.
It's really difficult.
I had a coworker that argued for a flat tax—considered that fair. I explained that anything less than a progressive tax was going to make the poor pay more and the wealthy pay less. Really, that's fair?
You should be so lucky to have enough that you're in the highest tax bracket.
There's no reason to think that the amount of taxpayer-funded services in a political jurisdiction has inversely proportional relationship with amount of crime that that happens there (nor any particular relationship with what kinds of crime, how serious the specific crimes are, and so on). Same thing with social tensions - social tension are caused by a lot of things, many of which aren't particularly related to the raw amount of taxpayer-funded services that exist. Would a more redistributive welfare state have made the partition of India between (mostly) Hindus and (mostly) Muslims less likely, for instance?
https://ideas.repec.org/p/cge/wacage/548.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263466102_An_analys...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
It's hard, but possible. However the goal of people who created current tax code is exactly opposite: to create system with loopholes.
US tax code is a mess, there should be less amount of different taxes, more unified taxes.
Georgism, a single tax on the unimproved value of land
Just curious: what makes you come to this conclusion?
I don't know who should pay what amount, but I'm pretty sure that me and that millionaire should have different tax brackets. Let alone people with tens, hundreds of millions or more.
PS: I'm in EU, not USA, but here I'm in a highest tax bracket so the point still stands, my tax rate is the same as for any local millionaire. Maybe even more, since those people are aggressively utilizing tax loopholes, shell corporations and offshore tax havens.
Disregarding all technicalities about what proportion people actually end up paying after performing clever tax planning.
Why are you sure that someone earning 1M should have higher proportion of their income taken away than someone earning 100k?
At some sufficiently low level of income I think it stops making sense collecting taxes, but beyond that I'm not so sure from a fairness-perspeective.
I could perhaps get on board with a hard cap on wealth, for preserving democracy. It is dangerous to have single individuals and families attain too much power. But up to that cap, I don't see any inherent unfairness or inefficiency in that people of moderate to high wealth pay the same proportional rate.
I think reversed-VAT is the good way to do
The overall idea with VAT is that you are taxed when you buy things
The reversed-VAT is the idea that you are taxed when you earn money (not "income" as in "salaries": every time some wealth are earned somehow)
Fixed rate, money's origin is of no concern, nor is money's usage
Say, you have a 40% tax on everything (using the same rate is important): - your company sold random stuff: you keep 60% - you earned money from interest / investment / etc: you keep 60% - income from your job: you keep 60% - a gift from your uncle: you keep 60% - inheritance: you keep 60% - exchange some money between your companies: you keep 60% - you borrow something: you keep 100% (it will fall back to 40% tax if that borrow is transformed into a gift) - you earned something of value (non-money gift), in one form or another: you have to pay 40% of its value
The root of all evil is the thinking that tax are made to make "a better world", that it is a tool a (social) justice or whatever
But it must be the same for everybody. Because only then it can be simple. And the more complex it is, the more loophole you have ("whack a mole" style as we have today)
Now, one person could keep all his money. Is it an issue ? No ! First, because he would have been taxed to 40% already. And then, because everybody dies someday. And that day, 40% of this person's riches will be retrieved: which would, again, be nice to the society as a whole: it would damage multi-generational wealth (while not void it).
Of course, you're also going to have to face the problem that representative democracy includes the ability to buy loopholes.
And then, there are unintended consequences because representatives aren't necessarily the most financially savvy. I'm thinking about the 401k program that disproportionately advantages high income people when it was touted as a savings route for middle class people.
401k identifies this loophole and sets limits. Setting contribution caps, limiting withdrawals until retirement, etc. Then they incentivized offering it to the poors, too, because working out an ad-hoc agreement like that is the sort of shit only really high power people in a company have the opportunity to do.
In short, the primary purpose of 401ks wasn't to benefit the middle class, it was to slightly reign in the rich.
They also have the effect that everybody has to pay them, including tax evaders, tax loophole abusers, criminals with undeclared incomes, etc, everybody has to pay it.
But yes, without offering sales tax rebates or with taxing essentials then your argument is true and they become less fair.
Albeit, the elephant in the room is always the definition of fairness itself.
It's actually pretty easy to pay an 80%+ tax rate in California if you consider taxes that your employer pays, sales tax (11%+ in some areas), local assessments, capital gains tax, etc.
Taxes paid by your employer aren't taxes you pay.
I'm quite sure your calculator is very basic and stops at 401ks and little more, there's stuff like mortgage interest, being married with kids, backdoor roth, etc.
But yeah, wouldn't change the number you said dramatically, maybe it would lower it to 45%ish on a 2M income.
1. It limits the opportunities for the government to use force on the general population. Today, if you do not file your annual taxes, men with guns come and put you in jail. A sales tax does not require this level of enforcement to be inflicted on the average citizen.
2. It's voluntary to a degree. Today if you don't like what the government is doing and want boycott paying taxes you cannot practically do so because of point 1 above. With a sales tax you can decide to defer unnecessary spending as a form of protest.
3. In theory it's vastly simpler to reason about and plan for. The myriad of tax advantaged accounts that have proliferated over the years in the US is daunting: IRAs, 401k/403b, 529s, FSAs, HSAs, Trump Accounts, Roth variants. We ask citizens to best guess how to allocate investments between these vehicles for goals decades in the future. If you need emergency access you're often looking at paying penalties. Not to mention the poor user experience baked into many of the designs. 401ks put the burden on your employer to restrict your investment options to their curated choices and their chosen plan administrator. You have to leave your job and roll it into an IRA to finally have the freedom to pick your own investments and who you have the account with. FSAs have the annoying use-it-or-lose-it rules. 529s are bizarrely state sponsored but you can choose a plan from any state. Like your state's plan but want to have the account at your broker? Too bad, you have to use the administrator your state chooses.
4. It's widely understood that if want less of something you should tax it. By taxing income and wealth it discourages work and saving. A sales tax discourages consumption instead, which encourages saving and is also pro environmental.
5. Changing asset allocation is free. Today, changing investments in a taxable account, where there are gains, triggers a taxable event. This discourages the movement of that capital to other investments.
6. In theory it's harder to dodge taxes as the simpler system has less loopholes.
7. On average, people with more wealth should have more expensive lifestyles which translates to them paying higher taxes.
I understand the arguments that sales taxes are regressive, let rich people dodge taxes by living frugally, etc. I accept all that may be true and I'm ok with it. Many seem fixated on using the tax code as a mechanism to level inequalities, as if that were its primary function, and a sales tax doesn't advance that goal enough for them. I think I can accept that some people are going to be vastly wealthier than me and are going most likely live a much easier life because of it; much like I can accept that some people are going to much prettier than me, taller than me, less genetically disposed to certain medical conditions, have been born to better families/circumstances and those things can all provide significant advantages in one's life.
So if you get a $150M loan off of your amazon shares that on paper are worth $150M, but you paid $100M, you have a cap-gain of $40M, and at 20% tax, $8M fills the IRS's coffers.
Obviously the tax basis in the assets would also be stepped up by this action.
The US should also get rid of the step up in basis at death. The recipient of an illiquid asset such as a family business should have a period of time (perhaps five or ten years from the triggering death depending on the type of asset) to "pay up" the tax basis "to market" at the time of death. Gains in liquid assets (such as publicly traded stock) should be taxed at the market value at the time of death by the estate or trust and passed on to beneficiaries with that adjusted tax basis.
The point is to disallow people who make a man's yearly salary every 60 seconds from getting <2% loans against an asset pool that would take hundreds of years for the average American to amass, if ever.
Of course there are still countries where one could park their money outside the OECD members but many of those are not exactly a "safe" place for such assets.
But universal is what we need as humanity.
The will seems to be building up, even in the UK (Polanski) and US (Mamdani, AOC, Sanders).
I'm betting that the success will be replicated in other countries soon and after that its only a matter of time for this to go global.
But this will be interesting show.
Hasn't this already been tried numerous times in numerous countries already? Didn't France attempt it multiple times without success and actually lost tax revenue with the creation and enforcement of the tax? Not to mention the wealth flight?
[0]: https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2024/09/11/the-failure-of-norw...
Mandami, AOC, and Sanders are the laughing stock of much of the electorate in the US. They are fairly popular in progressive population centers but not elsewhere. There have been activists promoting much the same ideas for my entire life (and I'm not young!) and they rarely if ever get national traction.
The "silent majority" in the US is just that - they don't make the news because they, in most cases, don't go out and protest and engage in battles with law enforcement. They have jobs, go to work, go home to their families, and vote - but they rarely are seen in the news any more than the fact the sun came up in the East and set in the West yesterday is "newsworthy" enough to be promoted in the media. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the criteria for being newsworthy.
Until masks and Musks we're taken off this year it was possible to pretend that the normal would play into their hands, as long as they stayed silent and played along.
Now pretending that the middle class can survive under the zillionaires Reich is only possible for very delusional minority.
My hunch is that Mamdani and Polanski have struck this nerve. Already before the events in Minneapolis, but now the support for this is dwindling.
I've done some experiments here in the normal and even the well off people are seeing the root cause. And it being the narcissist individuals holding godlike power, instead of the good ole "rule based" or "value based realism" or "systemic change" or even the latest "superorganism".
But remains to be seen, I might be wrong or even worse the power can be so centralized to zillionaire cliques.
did the people ever leave ? NO
That figure is highly misleading to cite by itself because the high tax rate also came with a bunch of loopholes and exemptions. That's why despite the drop in the headline rate of 70-90% or whatever, the actual tax take as % of GDP has remained remarkably steady in the past 7 decades.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
So it's not like it was actually a tax on the wealthiest, more a targeted tool to apply state power.
For example GWB "lived" in texas the whole time he worked in washington.
If an owner takes out profit, they are punished with high income taxes. So they reinvest in their business, and this is what the government wants because it creates jobs, innovation, products and services, and tax income.
So they've been doing what they have been forced to do by the government. And as a consequence their companies are worth a lot.
Now the government wants to tax them on the company value?
If everyone would be able to play these tax avoidance schemes I'm sure society would collapse. For big players these are easy schemes and somewhere this untaxed wealth must be recaptured. Just favoring the rich further accelerates the wealth imbalance.
Would it? Or would it just shift demand around? I mean the money is still there, and I don't see any reason the entities with money would lock any more of it up in a "static" manner (e.g. gold bars and piles of cash) than they do now.
But everybody is able to reinvest profits into a business they have, whether that's an industry giant, or a tiny one-man shop. There is no government on planet Earth which considers that to be "tax avoidance". Governments want profits to be reinvested and not paid out to owners, even the most socialist governments you can find.
If you're against this, then you shouldn't talk about taxes. You should rather talk about abolishing private property completely.
It's like in a combustion engine. Oil has to be added for the engine to work. But over time, dirt particles, metal abrasion, soot, and combustion residues accumulate in the oil, overwhelming the oil filter and reducing its lubricating ability. If you don't reset it to a “healthy” basic state at regular intervals, it gets so bad that it prevents the engine from operating and ultimately even destroys it.
Does the massive wealth inequality we see today cause problems that lead to the erosion of society itself? I would say yes, definitely. Of course, it is frustrating for these people when the money they have generated is taken away from them. But let's look at it realistically: if someone has $100 billion and $99 billion is taken away from them, they are still in a situation where they lack nothing financially.
At some point, you've played capitalism through to the final level. And then you should put down the controller and go outside to listen to the birds chirping instead of frantically chasing after the growth of a number that, due to its sheer size, no longer has any concrete meaning, apart from the fact that there may be two other people whose numbers are bigger or who are hot on your heels.
On a side note. Yes, the massive wealth inequality is eroding society. But billionaires aren't the source of this problem. They are outliers, freaks if you so will.
The real problem is the massive wealth inequality is the gigantic prices of real estate and rent, created by the monetary system being based on real estate instead of productivity. That means it is very hard for a person to claw and scratch her way to equality if they're not born with real estate or gets that benefit at an early age. For most, their irredeemable mistake in life was choosing to be born in the wrong decade.
At the same time a huge percentage of the population who has never made any effort in life and generally have no talent or any admirable qualities, get great wealth and comfort by having been born at the right time.
For every billionaire there is a a hundred thousand of the kind of person described above. Most of us have them not far away, and they have a hundred fold bigger impact on our lives than any billionaire. And at least many billionaires have at least accomplished or done - something - in their life.
> At some point, you've played capitalism through to the final level. And then you should put down the controller and go outside to listen to the birds chirping instead of frantically chasing after the growth of a number that, due to its sheer size, no longer has any concrete meaning, apart from the fact that there may be two other people whose numbers are bigger or who are hot on your heels.
Wouldn't building a rocket to go to Mars for example be such an endeavour, which is bigger than chasing the imaginary dollar number? Or the philanthropic endeavours of other famous billionaires? Or even exacting political influence in the shadows, which is probably something all known and unknown billionaires do?
That's been happening for a long time in the US. Staggering military industrial complex. Tens of billions lost in COVID relief. Billions lost in Minnesota due to unchecked privatized social welfare fraud (which has been known about for a decade).
Some mistakes will happen. What we have is unacceptable. If the government can't handle the money responsibly, it has no business collecting the money.
I’m genuinely baffled at the incredulous tone here. Yes, that is exactly what should happen: laws, subsidies, and incentives enable a company to grow and flourish. Then, as the company grows, other laws incentivize it to give some of its state-sponsored affluence back to benefit the country.
Like, sure, the execution of that process is often dysfunctional, but the fundamental contract there does not seem like it should be surprising to people: we don’t have (many) socialist state-owned businesses, but the point of a functioning country is still to provide good things to the people living in it. Not to benefit businesses or a tiny sliver of the population.
That’s why we have everything from income taxes to interstate highways: to distribute wealth and resources to (a flawed approximation of, but it’s still the goal) everyone in the country. That’s just how non-corrupt governments are supposed to work!
Then why not tax the military? They are surely the most affluent company of them all, if you take a tally of all their inventory.
If you tax companies based on their size rather than their profits, then you're not going to have any big companies. Any investor or entrepreneur would be a fool to invest in making a big company.
But many endeavours need big companies and big investments. For example power plants. That's a whole lot of value to tax, such affluence! Better redistribute this wealth, and instead have a hundred thousand non-affluent hot dog stands.
> That’s just how non-corrupt governments are supposed to work!
In practice, every government in the world does not tax companies reinvesting their profit into growth.
If they all had unified in one voice against the administration, Trump might be more constrained. They might not be so hated. If they realized, like Henry Ford, that a strong middle class actually is good for THEM too, all this could be avoided. Instead they’re showing up at Melania screenings while average citizens are getting shot in the streets.
I don’t think they realize the fire they’re playing with my stomping on the social contract that made them so wealth.
Some of them do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42335797
But the pitchforks are coming for 12 years already. They got accustomed to the sight and even put some measures to redirect the masses so they fight each-other.
Sadly, I'm far more worried about a thousand people who make a million bucks than I am about one guy who makes a billion.
You don't get to the B number by not being pretty darn shrewd and sociopathic so those guys must be pretty evil but man have the "upper middle class" or "professional managerial class" or whatever you wanna call the "comfortable enough to not think about the harsh economic realities of their ideas" class been an unmitigated disaster for western society over the past 20-70yr depending on how you wanna measure.