I agree you should want to avoid having an income disparity like this, but we are where we are. The goal of this tax is to help correct that disparity.
One argument could be that maybe entrepreneurial personality traits aren't normally distributed, and unless you find a way change people's personalities in mass, the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
It's simply because money is compoundable. The more money you have the more you can make, and the more you make means less other people have.
https://fortune.com/2026/01/13/us-workers-smallest-labor-sha...
Having lots of wealth does not mean other people have less. If that were the case, there'd be as much wealth today as there was 1000 years ago. Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
> There's not a finite amount of wealth.
I think there is a finite amount of wealth, at any given time, same as "money". Money is a transactable medium to measure value, rather than as a type of good on its own. The medium can change region to region and over time.
Wealth is an aggregate of all valuables you possess, including expected gains. Wealth is also subjective, because of these properties. People agree on some approximations for the purposes of transactions with money.
> Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
Depends on perspective, I would say. When the value rises in a public company, even when it's just the expectation, you have people dumping their wealth (as money) into the company. So yes, it does for large public companies. While it does grant some rights, in a practical sense it's a hole you dump money into with the expectation that you can reach in and take out some amount in the future. I can understand this is what is envisioned, when people talk about wealth as zero sum. I don't agree, but I get what they are going at.
> If that were the case, there'd be as much wealth today as there was 1000 years ago.
Wealth is partially based on expectation. The growth in population fuels increases in wealth, because that's the part of the equation that is speculative.
That's not how it works at all.
If I have a $200K net worth, and I'm living in a city where the range is $1M to $500M, then I'm pretty much living in poverty, even though I have "more wealth" than in scenario 1.
This is also why, although my absolute wealth today is hundreds or thousands of times more than a king in the middle ages, I'm not actually living like a king today.
It's also how gentrification works. You're living somewhere and all of a sudden a bunch of very wealthy people move in, raising the prices of everything. You're no more or less wealthy than before, but everything has become slightly worse.
Can everyone be rich enough to not be in the bottom 20%? No, no matter how rich we become.
Can everyone be rich enough to have servants? No, unless you count machines as servants. But if you do, then I'm rich enough to have several.
You live way better than a king. Your expected lifespan is higher than kings because of access to better food, nutrition, and medical care. You have access to luxuries like chocolate, and coffee that kings might have tasted once in their life, or at best every few weeks.
Not understanding what wealth is, is precisely what leads to this mistaken thinking.
As for gentrification, it is often just confusing correlation and causation. People blame rich people moving in, when really a place just actually became better due to improvements in goods or services like public transit exapansion.
It's not an issue that they are wealthy, it's that they are abusing that position to gain even more wealth at the expense of the rest of the population.
> Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.
This is a strawman. The ability of people to accumulate wealth is affected by every aspect of the economic system, including the means by which those companies are acquiring wealth.
Proverb from my granny to contemplate: the devil always craps on the larger heap.
Lots of people with great ideas, skills, and work ethic don’t have $250,000 lying around to invest.
And Bezos's biological dad was a unicyclist, his mom got pregnant with him at 16 and later dropped out of college, and his stepdad was a Cuban refugee who got an education and became an engineer for Exxon. Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.
Think about it another way. If the government doled out $500k to fund business ideas, do you think that investment would be available to kids of refugees? Of course not. There would be gatekeeping behind credentials and connections, and it would be open to a lot less than 10% of the population.
[1] In terms of birth lottery, having top 10% parents is like being born smart enough to get a 1290 on the SAT or having a 120 IQ. Not exactly rarified aid! https://research.collegeboard.org/reports/sat-suite/understa...
I don't buy that this is a common scenario. How many of those actually own a franchise and how many of them are drowning in debt trying to pay off the loan?
The average retirement savings at that age is around $500,000 according to Edward Jones. That’s average, not median, which means that a ton of people have a lot less money saved up than that by that age.
The Bezos family had $500k adjusted for inflation in money they could risk and lose 100% on. That money was also in an account the presumably was liquid enough to spend (I.e., I can’t spend my 401k money before retirement age without enduring a massive penalty and tax burden).
I must reiterate that no parent would liquidate their entire 401k for a business investment. Middle class people are not starting McDonald’s franchises. At best they are starting a Subway or a Dunkin with borrowed money, and usually the families that do that are putting the whole extended family in on that investment.
Finally, I will address the way in which you our bootlicking our hyper-capitalist system: you praise the virtues of a system that allows people like Jeff Bezos to make it big while downplaying the wild inequalities in that system caused by under-taxation of people like him.
10% of Americans, over 20 million people, have no health insurance. Why is that okay?
How do we know that it wasn’t a financially irresponsible move that in this case happened to pay off?
It does? I mean, sure, it's better than having only the already rich stay rich, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a life outcome that everybody, or even 10% or 1% of the US can shoot for. The vast majority of people stay closer to zero. Who gives a shit that a few people get to win the right-time-right-place lottery?
So it matters a lot where a society’s elites come from. In most societies, entering the elite requires family pedigree, credentials, and connections. If your society is such that simply becoming upper middle class gives your kids a sufficient platform to become a billionaire, that has a huge effect on who makes up the elites. Having elites whose parents were refugees or restaurant owners is hugely different from most countries.
This data point doesn't distinguish between a system that fairly rewards abilities, and one that works like a lottery. My guess is that the US is in between: it unfairly rewards abilities, and chance plays a large role.
Taking Jeff Bezos as example: 1) he certainly has remarkable abilities but maybe not 1,000,000 times more than the median American, yet he has about 1,000,000 times the wealth; 2) it's plausible that the US population of 350M includes several people with abilities similar to Bezos yet no notable wealth due to various circumstances. Both points suggest an unfair system.
My point is that having tycoons with 1,000,000 times the wealth of the median person is not a fair distribution, no matter which reasonable function you choose.
If you think superficially of "fair" like in a game, then yes a winner-take-all system can be fair. But when talking about socioeconomics, I think fairness goes a bit deeper. For example I would say a society with a lottery that picks one winner and tortures all others is not fair to those who lose (even though it's game-fair).
Amazon does not have an exceedingly high profit margin, and my understanding is that a lot of it comes from stuff like AWS, not Amazon deliveries - correct me if I'm wrong here. So I'm not sure that "three amazon deliveries a day" - if this is even common - is why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly.
Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed?
Jeff Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. So 9% of the expected value of the money going "into Amazon's coffers" indefinitely into the future is counted as part of his current "wealth." It's not money under his mattress.
Is your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to own 9% of a company that they started?
The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here. The big "wealth" numbers are all about equity ownership in highly valued companies. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
It was not so abstract when Musk came up with 44 billion to buy Twitter... The details are complicated but in the end it's still wealth.
> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
Presumably he would sell the stock to pay the wealth tax (or whatever mechanism is there to limit wealth)?
As for the voting control: when you're down to 9% this ship has sailed hasn't it? Anyway I don't think society has a moral obligation to allow individuals personal control of a trillion dollar company because they founded it (and if society disagrees with me, super-voting shares can be used as Alphabet does).
The question boils down to a feeling that when the revolution comes, that no one person needs more than, say, $100 million for themselves, or not. Trying to distract the conversation into defining "for themselves" will only prolong your time before the firing squad, comrad.
The answer depends on how should the losses from unsuccessful entrepreneurship be distributed?
For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? Do I get made whole by the government giving me $1M, and the government takes posession of the property?
If so, I foresee a lot more opportunities for corruption.
You declare bankruptcy. Your vendors who extended credit get hosed. Your employees go on unemployment benefits. Each of these costs money, and each of these reduces taxable income.
The aforementioned suggestions are a great way to kill any incentive to take risks and start a new business with one’s savings, further tilting the playing field to SP500 dominance.
The above would be Microsoft for context. For some reason your comment assumes that what a company was "founded as" should dictate what they do decades later.
This is a false zero sum view of wealth that is unfortunately all too common.
No, that logic doesn't follow. Say my wealth grew by 3% and my neighbor's grew by 5%. That doesn't imply any sort of "siphoning" at play.
Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased"
Which is exactly the same as "getting siphoned to the rich"
Money have no intrinsic value: its only value is relative the others (and also depends on what can be bought ..)
> Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased
No, not even remotely true. This is a fixed sum view of wealth that assumes the only way to obtain wealth is to take it from someone else.
Say I have a 3,000 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot, and so does my neighbor. My neighbor's company has a successful IPO and he sells his equity to buy a 6,000 sq ft house on a half acre lot, then how has my wealth decreased?
It may be easier to understand globally: if you have no raise but everybody have a raise, then you are poorer (because everything cost more, but you have no raise)
This is just factually wrong. If my neighbor gets a raise and I don't, and stuff costs the same amount then I have not gotten poorer. If my neighbor doubled his income tomorrow, how would I be any poorer? In theory, you could argue that his higher income results in inflation, but that's only the case if total productivity doesn't match the increase in the money supply.
Wealth is not zero sum: inflation adjusted wealth has increased over time: more houses and cars get built, more advanced industries increase productivity, etc. Wealth is not a fixed pie, the total amount of wealth in the world increases.
Wealth has no intrinsic value, it is only relative to other and to what can be exchanged with money
The numbers may always go up but the things that can be exchanged does not. Hence the "you become poorer"
No, the things that can be exchanged for money does go up. More houses get built, more cars are manufactured, etc. The total value of goods in the economy increases.
The economy is not zero sum.
Yes indeed, every body can have everything. In the end, everybody will have a palace near the beach, everybody will have a mansion with a qualitative neighborhood, everybody can have a mona lisa at home
(trying ad absurdum to see if it helps you)
We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but we also don't live in a world where economic output is zero sum.
If you have a 3 bedroom house, and your neighbor builds a palace on the beach, you still have a 3 bedroom house. Nothing was taken from you, someone else created a new asset.
Capitalism concentrates capital in fewer hands.
And thinking about bubbles, imagine what happens when the GenAI one pops. The wealth some new billionaires had will go up in smoke, their assets will go on sale, and they'll be gobbled up by the old billionaires.
But I think still a lot of people would argue the distribution is too unequal.
Compound interest, and as (admittedly) an armchair economist I buy into the argument that goes along the lines of:
"when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth".
In my view, r has been greater than g for some time now.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
To me, it is clear that while Europe optimizes for quality of life to a large extent, Americans really drink the coo-laid and enthusiastically optimize for shareholder value. I highly encourage you to give life in Europe a go at some point. I hope you'll return (or stay) also having reached the same perspective.
I think for competitive and talented people, US in general offers much more lucrative opportunities as long as you're OK with the US specific drawbacks. For non-competitive people, living in Europe would probably be a more convenient.
I think the problem though is in the future, both the US and Europe has grave societal and economic issues but from the different angles. Europe lacks economical drive and seems to discourage change on a cultural level. The US on the other hand seems to be an extreme catalyst.
I'm not familiar enough with quantitative data to judge on the compound interest, nevertheless I think in the last few decades we have already been witness on the global level to major changes in wealth: empires like UK have shrank, giants like China have risen. This had been very different a few decades ago and is an anecdote at least that compound interest can only do so much for empires, in the face of major changes.
Only issue is, when you account for depreciation, you find that r>g applied to housing (so boomer NIMBYs) not billionaires.
This is not a Karl Marx thing, but a Henry George thing.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-...
Luck always plays the biggest role. Maybe the billionaires would have always been successful in some way, but not be a billionaire or even a millionaire.
Also, your argument sounds like a just-so story designed to support the status quo.
> the imbalance in wealth attraction will remain inherent.
Is is really a good idea to be ruled by the people with the greatest "wealth attraction?"
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
Yes, because regardless of anything else, the wealth imbalance has been politically destabilizing. Your comment strikes me as out-of-touch quantitative thinking: making certain easily-measured numbers going up the highest goal, while ignoring other things that are harder to quantify. That's a blind spot shared by a lot of people, especially tech people.
So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
We can try and moderate it as a system (e.g some forms of democracy, socialism, etc.) to maybe lower the amplitudes, but it would be ignorant to deny that this might be a core part of current human nature. Humans themselves are a specie with disproportionate power & influence compared to other species, so I think it would only make sense if this trait would also apply within the specie.
Now imagine, there'd be some alien government, who'd be like "whoa humans are making way too disproportionate progress compared to the other species, let's tax/prune them so they don't get too much power".
What do you mean, you found that out? And what does that have to do with anything?
> So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.
> Humans themselves are a specie with disproportionate power & influence compared to other species, so I think it would only make sense if this trait would also apply within the specie.
I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?
It's all an interpretation, never claimed it to be anything beyond a thinking model I like.
> To me, that doesn't sound like an observation, but rather an interpretation. We could apply various epistemological carpet beaters to see what remains. One would be the critique of ideology. A few others can be found in the philosophy of science. It also seems to contradict your reference to thermodynamics. Wouldn't that mean that personality traits don't play a role at all? We don't look at individual particles, and certainly not at their personality traits.
No we don't, but I don't think it's necessarily because we don't want to, but because we often can't. Nevertheless, I think my rationale still applies. For example, if you take a bunch of matter, for example water, you'd find out that the distribution of Deuterium and definitely Tritium is really "unfair". Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?
> I cannot understand this conclusion at all. Why should the structural relationship to other species be reflected within the species itself?
It doesn't necessarily have to but: 1. It seems to have been very favorable trait evolutionally to force your will on other species. I'm no brain nor social expert but it seems to me that in order to stop this trait internally, there would need to be some pretty strong inhibitors to counter that. 2. Regardless of the species claim, you can see the pattern of exceptional individuals with disproportionate influence in many other places in nature: queen bees, pack leaders, and human kings of sorts. in I think practically every culture on earth in recorded history?
I really struggle to think of any mass systems, in human society or nature in which power is not distributed disproportionally to a relatively small portion of individuals.
Sorry, but if that's your yardstick for acceptable models of thought, then only nonsense can come out of it. No one has any reason to take any of your thoughts seriously if you don't question your own thinking more critically.
> Why only so few particles get to have that extra neutron and others do not?
This has nothing to do with thermodynamics and even less to do with unfairness. It's a completely meaningless analogy. You might as well just flip it around and say that it's good that so few particles have to carry around that annoying extra neutron, or whatever. If you're going to draw any conclusions about humans from this, you might as well read coffee grounds or clouds or animal bones scattered on the forest floor. That's not thinking!
I have people like that in my personal circle. They're not exactly the brightest minds.
Edit: A queen bee is simply fed in a special way during the larval stage. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which larva is selected for this purpose. That said, it is also wrong to imagine her as an actual queen or as the CEO of the bees. She does not rule over the other bees but is simply responsible for laying eggs. If you wanted to, you could see from this example that your thinking does not proceed from premises to conclusions, but rather begins with conclusions and then rather loosely gathers together premises that might fit.
What can certainly be done, and what has already been done quite productively, is to transfer the thermodynamic concept of entropy to other areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Shannon's information entropy. But there is also Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic entropy, social entropy in the social sciences, and some (rather speculative and perhaps primarily metaphorical) concepts of psychological and psychodynamic entropy.
However, I do not think that if one were to zoom in further in these areas, one would find hard evidence for the worldview that is seeking justification here.
Where did I say that?
> If everyone was billionaire level money obsessed society would cease to work. There is nothing to indicate billionaires are giving us a disproportionate amount of what makes society work, and without working society to host it there is no progress.
I think if you wouldn't have the crazy risk takers who want the power/influence/money, either other people would need to take the lead on that, or there'd be a lot less advancement and we'd be closer as a society to our ancestors.
I've yet to see mass systems of groups in which work is being done without the leadership and initiative of a small proportion of people. For example, imagine a movement that is not founded by 1 or few people, but instead a company that is founded Day 1 with thousands of people, instantly. I think that's practically impossible without a hypothetical hivemind, but I'd like to be proven wrong!
By completely ignoring the facts about it.
> So in regards to this economic issue, it seems that human personality traits that lead to disproportionate power/influence/money are distributed non-uniformly to an extreme extent.
It doesn't seem that way to people who look at ALL factors, not just this one that is chosen to justify a sociopathic ideology.
Why is it that we have to trim out nails when they grow? Why not leave it natural?
Why do we remove the weed in between the pavers in our backyard? Why not let it be natural?
The fact is the world around us needs constant work. Our capitalism is no different. It needs constant pruning or it becomes gluttonous. There was a book I think which said most people involved in illegal drug trafficking are barely getting by, most of the income is soaked up at the top. I don't remember the point the bio was trying to make but it feels like that way for any enterprise these days.
The richest people in the US have reportedly increased their net worth by over 1.5T over the course of the last year or so.
How is this sustainable?
The notion I'm getting is that these forces that drive change are bigger than all of us, and they are inherently unsustainable in the larger scale of things, pretty similar to how solar systems are not really sustainable in a scale much larger than us, but not that is still pretty small in a universal scale.
So for your perspective it might be unsustainable, but for the bigger system what you describe is smaller than a grain of sand.
Besides, there's this thing called tax incidence and it's not as simple as "tax the billionaires" because it's not clear how that plays out in terms of people's wages or middle class investments.
On the other hand, land value taxes would actually be incident on landowners.
Therefore devaluing the value of the dollar so that those who had basically steady state income (wage earners) have been completely fucked while the lucky ones had their yachts rise with the tide.
I'm not particularly in favour of high taxation, but I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. The general point is that "the ultra rich" are able to benefit from a whole host of loopholes which allow them to pay proportionally less than the plebs.
Now, this specific point seems somewhat debatable, judging by the fact that people don't seem to agree; I personally have not looked into the matter to form an opinion.
Maybe our tax code hasn't kept up with the financialization of the economy. In any case, this whole tax increase thing, at least as I see it in France, since to spill over to "regular rich people", as in engineers or similar who "just" have a relatively high salary.
Another issue, which I think is different but is rolled into complaints about rising tax rates is what the state actually does with the money. As in "I'm ok with paying tax, but not to fund this or that thing". In France, specifically, many "public service" offices have closed, having people either travel great distances or fight half-assed computer systems, while, at the same time, the number of public servants (so, cost) has increased.
Do you not see this? Probably because you don't feel it in your pocket (yet, let's see what happens when the USD crashes. I will feel it too, no doubt.)
There's the belief that the economy can be a mighty tool to improve our lives, but isn't it going pretty much overboard since some time? Is this materialistic growth-at-all-costs ideology really making average US lives better these days?
From the outside the US feels like a runner that is stretching its arm towards the finish line (total automation) while also falling on their ass.
That's not an argument, it's a completely counterfactual assertion ... or rather, the assertion that this is the cause of uneven distribution of wealth.
> Then you might ask, if that's true, do you I want to enforce equality, potentially dragging down the economy to mediocracy (for example many stagnating European economies) or maybe accept that current nature does not meet our societal desire for equality.
But of course it's not true, it's just an attempt to justify a morally bankrupt sociopathic ideology.
Sounds like US vs Europe. Having redistributive policies funded by taxes works well until your most productive people flee for a country that doesn't, and you steadily lose ground to competitors economically.
It's going to be hard to provide all of that when you don't have the money for it (eg. fiscal crisis in France right now), or if you get invaded by your neighbor (or any other competitor) eclipses you economically and then uses that to subjugate you. The european model of reaping the peace dividend and using it to fund a more generous welfare state worked from 1990s to 2010s, but is breaking down with the rise of china and russia, and is further exacerbated by sluggish growth and the demographic/pension crisis.
This is the actual issue, which we often avoid talking about because it's grim. Like, health care is expensive, old people health care is really expensive, and the proportion of old people in many Western countries is increasing over time (because of a fall in birth rates). I believe the FT had a good article about this recently, where they showed that the vast majority of extra spending from government was on old people.
Now, clearly, society doesn't want to just shoot old people when they get sick, but I'm not sure how taxation is gonna look as the proportion of old people increases. Obviously increasing retirement ages helps here, but that's mostly just a massive tax on blue collar workers, who are much less likely to be able to continue working into their 70s, whereas for many cubicle jockeys, it's a lot more plausible.
Personally, I think a higher goal for the state is to provide a substrate of sufficient physical safety, law and order, and infrastructure so that its citizens may have the ability to pursue their aspirations. I think human thriving is very important. And I want the ability to try at a ridiculous thing and achieve commensurate reward. In many ways, I don't even want that for me. I want that for others. When I see someone take a crack at something that most thought impossible and make it happen, I love it.
It isn't that those of us who have this opinion are temporarily embarrassed billionaires. It's that we like that someone took a crack at something absurd and became billionaires for it. People who don't get it always say these things out of misunderstanding: "Why do the poor in the US vote so often against their own interests?". The obvious answer is "because they are principled and not purely self-interested".
https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occu...
The actual question is: "If we tax tax them, will they leave? (losing the planned tax revenue/backfiring)"
It is pretty easy to avoid state taxes - just move to a different state.
The increase in wealth of billionaires in 2025 was $1.5 trillion: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires-1-5-trillio... Most of that isn't even real money--it's people betting on AI. (As an aside, is the government going to give huge tax refunds when the AI bubble bursts and all that "wealth" disappears?)
If the U.S. just taxed people the way they do in Germany we could raise trillions in revenue without resorting to tricks like one-time wealth taxes. The focus is on billionaires because Americans want a German-style welfare state without German-style taxes on the middle and upper middle class.
70K a year is poor in California, but top 1% rich in almost any country in the world.
Low income disparities are countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Armenia to name the first three with below 30 GINI income.
The USA and UK are leading the process since they started to pursue this goal aggressively during the 80s with Reaganism and Thatcherism.
Wealth is equal to your share of the overall resources, $ amounts are just an abstraction.