[capableweb]

Obvious solution is to tax high earners more than low earners. If the inequality is increasing anyways, increase the amount of tax the high earners have to pay, and lower the one for low earners.

But if you're one of those high earners (that let's say works at Deutsche Bank) who sit in an office, you're not gonna write a proposal for higher tax for yourself. So instead you focus on those other people, who are "stealing" your salary by not having to go to the office anymore.

[candiodari]

That's exactly what they're suggesting. You forget what "high earners" are and aren't. It is not the super-rich since the assets of the super-rich don't actually amount to that much compared to the total.

The state taxes where the lion's share of TOTAL wealth is (not wealth per person). That's the income of the middle class. That's why another new tax on income is suggested.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/revenue_pie%2C_...

So middle class income represents 80% of the total tax income (and that's ignoring that customs duties and excise taxes also mostly come from that bucket, then we'd easily get to 85%)

"High earners" are generally defined as anyone earning more than double the average income in the country. For the US that's anyone making $62k2 = $120k per household*. Or for an individual that would be a chunk above that $62k, let's say $68k. All figures before tax, of course.