Doing one doesn't prevent from doing the other.

I'm also in the minority but my view on this has changed a lot in the past few years. I don't understand why there isn't a "maximum income" regulation actually. If you make $20M/year, do you really need more?

Why should someone be punished for making more money? I see this as a big hammer that could hurt innovation.

On the contrary. Without the lure of an 8 figure income, a person might choose to go into research science, engineering, medicine, teaching, etc. instead of becoming a hedge fund manager.

> Why should someone be punished for making more money?

Taxes are not a punishment, though they may be a disincentive. Taxes are also not a payment in exchange for services.

Taxes may not be meant to be a punishment, but they are certainly presented as such in certain cases.

"Those one-percenters make too much; make them pay their fair share!" "Smoking is bad; raise taxes on tobacco products"

> Taxes may not be meant to be a punishment, but they are certainly presented as such in certain cases.

> "Those one-percenters make too much; make them pay their fair share!" "Smoking is bad; raise taxes on tobacco products"

That first pseudoquote is not presenting taxes as a punishment. It's presenting them as a fulfillment of social responsibility to "pay a fair share." The second one is presenting them as a disincentive for a harmful behavior.

When somebody makes $20M/year, do they really do it for the money at this point? Is it really what keeps them going? If so, I would argue that these people are mentally ill.

Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working?

And I don't see that as a punishment. The money not spend on crazy CEO incomes can be used to pay other workers better, or invest in innovation since that's what you brought up.

> Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working?

I would likely stop working. Pay me $20M + $1 and let's check...

You're not at all in the minority: the (interesting) US president was elected in large part because enough people were sick of ever-expanding federal government that they got to the polls and voted.

What a strange take.

The 2016 campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the government. Trump's campaign promises included $550 billion federal investment in infrastructure, deporting all illegal immigrants, and providing health insurance for everybody, paid for by the government.

Even if this was the reason everyone voted for Trump (a dubious claim at best), that still wouldn't make it the majority opinion because the majority of voters didn't vote for him.