it's a zero sum view of the world that is not correct. You could be lower income when you are 30 and wealthy when you are 65. So it's a lot of the same people that benefit. But more importantly, you are not considering the benefit of higher investment that the wealthy make because their investment taxes are lower. Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs. In fact, the whole world has moved over time for this reason to taxing consumption more than investment.

Yes, I understand Saez disagrees. But he is hardly the final word on this. Hardly.

> Higher investment leads to more economic activity and more jobs

In some cases. Investing in the stock market doesn't. It's just a somewhat randomized wealth redistribution system. If I invest $1M in IBM, IBM doesn't see any of that money. Nor do the investors in IBM. It might move the price of a fraction of a penny, but the money just goes to whatever person sold their stock.

So, some investment (private companies, municipal bonds, etc) leads to more economic activity, but not all investment. I'd be interested to see the breakdown.

Most people aren't wealthy at 65. Some do, but that's an exception. You seem to live in a different world than I do.

Average net worth of a 65 year old is over half a million in the US.

most 65 year olds who are wealthy at 65, weren't at 30. Just pointing out that if you support a policy because you don't think it will affect you, it very well might later on. But that's an aside point, not the main point.