> It's very obvious I wasn't talking about salaried rich
Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax."
> I was talking about "generational wealth" people.
That's obviously not the same word as "rich."
Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax."
> I was talking about "generational wealth" people.
That's obviously not the same word as "rich."
Ah so then you did get my meaning the first time. Which means pointing out that some people who may or may not have assets also pay high taxes on their salaried income was unnecessary.
> That's obviously not the same word as "rich."
High income isn't rich. "Rich" is someone who has a lot of assets and wealth. That's literally the dictionary definition of the word.
"Rich and paying no income tax" -> largely the top end of the top end. The vast majority of rich people pay lots of income tax.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you land in the category that most Americans consider rich, but you think attention should really be directed towards the ultrawealthy. Totally reasonable and capital gains obviously needs to be the center of that discussion, but let's not try to get there by just moving the line of what "rich" is and helping people delude themselves into thinking $300k+/yr is middle class.
There's ire directed at high income earners who pay high income taxes? This is news to me. Why exactly?
> just moving the line of what "rich" is
Again that's the dictionary definition of rich. But never mind that. This segment of the "rich" (if you want to call them that) is already well-taxed on their salaried income - we both agree. What's left to say about them?
Standard arguments about inequality? CEOs for instance attract much ire from their pay, often in the form of comparisons to their pay relative to the janitor working there or whatever.