| > That's very much untrue How so? It’s basic math. The middle and upper middle class is still responsible for the vast majority of income. > you arent really taxing the ultrawealthy. You could raise tremendous revenue See, you’re getting confused because it’s not “tremendous” in the scheme of tax revenue. The only thing that would accomplish is helping with income inequality (i.e. it’s punitive towards the rich). This is fine if that’s your goal but it’s not going to pay for anything like basic income, universal healthcare, or major infrastructure. It won’t even balance the existing budget. > The reason that isn't done isn't that you can't raise enough revenue that way, Yes it is, full stop. A 100% tax rate on the top .1% would bring in about 500 billion annually (~$3 mil * 150 mil filers * 0.001) . That’s not even enough to cover the “cheap” infrastructure bill being proposed. > they earn vastly disproportionately ought to be untouchable. Careful with that. You’re also talking about how much of the middle classes retirement is structured there. Long term capital gains are used by everyone. |