[_kxbd]

Since you said "expect", this comment isn't directed at you specifically.

But let's say someone is advocating for that 80%-90% tax-rate on income:

1. Why should I try to make more money if I'm going to be taxed at 80%-90%, forking over such a massive sum of my money as to make it mostly worthless?

2. Even if this advocate believes the rich don't need the money, what makes the government entitled to take the vast majority of their income? That was money the rich income earner made for themselves. I'd argue that it should be their decision how to spend the majority of it.

I'd argue that advocating for seizing such a high amount of money is very anti-capitalist. It's not really a government's position to regulate how much wealth someone "needs" when you have a high degree of freedom.

[nicoburns]

1. Yes, why should you try to make more money if you already have that much? There's more to life than money, and I'd argue that incentivising people already earning millions to optimise for making more money is probably not good for society.

2. What makes them entitled to that money in the first place? Surely nothing other than the economic system which is grounded in a democratic negotiation. You may be interested to know that other languages don't use the word "earn" for income. For example, Spanish uses "ganar" which means "win". Just because you complete a task for which you are rewarded with money by our current economic system doesn't mean you have earned it (see also: people who think things are immoral just because they're illegal)

Sure, it's anti-capitalist. Why do you think that is a bad thing? I believe it's the government's role, because that extra freedom granted to the rich is taking what I consider to be far more important freedoms away from the poor.