[greentxt]

Nor do I! I am as envious of them as anyone else. I don't own a home and likely never will, and it's because of rich people (and black rock) moving in a buying up homes for speculative/investment reasons mostly. Envy and housing market competition aside, morally it's a "camel through the eye of a needle" thing. Rich people should give more wealth away, for moral reasons.

But I also think policy shouldn't be based on (these) sentiments alone. Policy should be judged by it's net impact. This seems like absudly myopic policy, coming from the same bright minds who gave us a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package they named "inflation reduction act" that was a net negative for working people, but a boon bureaucrats and other industry special interests.

[__loam]

People who have $100 million dollars have that money because the United States is a developed, mostly politically stable country with a highly skilled workforce and a massive military. They should pay into the system that made them so absurdly rich.

I also disagree with assessment of the stimulus and the inflation reduction act. In terms of monetary policy, juicing the economy with stimulus is exactly what you're supposed to do during times of economic crisis. Policymakers wanted to avoid the slow recovery of 2008. The ultimate result of post-covid monetary policy is that we had a brief period of major inflation (much of which was caused by pandemic and war related supply shocks) but things are getting back to normal and we've largely avoided the worst outcomes. With respect to the inflation reduction act, large investments were needed in infrastructure maintenance, onshoring manufacturing, and tackling climate change. That law did all those things, so I don't really care what they call it tbh.