Here's a good example: Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary (at least it was true 7 years ago).

https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...

It's worth noting that the income tax use to be more than 90% on the very rich...

Tax rules and deductions have changed over the years. Almost nobody paid the top rate and effective tax burdens for the rich have been more or less flat for decades:

https://i.imgur.com/uWl8vsp.png

Top 1% of the population is for example your dentist... Where the situation really changed is more about the top 0.1%

So, I hear this a lot, and I was curious what it actually looked like.

In 1944, it was 94% for two years. The bottom bracket was 24%. Then in '51 through '54 it hovered around 91%, with the bottom bracket hovering around 20%. This seems like it must related to World War II, though I didn't do enough research to know otherwise.

The bottom bracket today is 10%, with the top being 37%. Is this a "what's good for the goose..." situation? You think the rich ought to be taxes 90+% on their income, and the poor out to have their taxes approximately double, or only the rich should have increases? I'm not sure current scenario justifies the kind of extremes that World War II may have.

Mostly when the very rich are elected to government positions and decide to shift the tax burden down.

Exactly. “Tax the rich” is all fun and games until enough voters decide the threshold for “rich” starts at approximately $120k per year and owning a house.

Honestly I would not be surprised if by the time I’m ready to retire that all or part of my 401k is seized to help “solve” the (surprisingly still-present!) problem of wealth inequality.

$120k per year is a couple of orders of magnitude below any threshold thus far proposed.

So far. Remember it’s a numbers game driven by a population bomb.

This is why the wealth tax will fail to fix inequality. Eventually your parents shitty 250k house out in the sticks will qualify for wealth tax. Whatever stocks you have that aren't in a retirement account will be wealth taxed even though half their growth is just from inflation. It's going to suck.

> shitty 250k house out in the sticks

I think you might be disconnected from what a house costs in less-than-desirable areas, but there are houses you can find within driving distances of major jobs hubs for a fraction of that price. Sure, they won't be nice, but you used the word "shitty" and implied a middle-of-nowhere locale.

When I left Pittsburgh not too long ago, you could buy a house across the river from where I worked for about $30k. Yes, it sucked and wasn't a great spot, but that's a lot cheaper than $250k and I could walk to work.

I just checked and found a shitty fixer upper (so a lot of work) in the same spot for $40k. And there are plenty of nicer houses that don't need work for under $100k, and again this is just a few minutes drive away from Pittsburgh.

> that aren't in a retirement account

You give the progressives in the U.S. government more credit than I do. I’m just waiting for them to collectivize retirement accounts to “help the needy”, promise to redistribute it fairly so that I won’t have anything to worry about in my old age, and then break their promises when I’m 90 years old and too old to earn a living any more.

In most places it already qualifies for a wealth tax in the form of a property tax...

Exactly! A huge portion of the middle class's wealth is tied up in property equity that is taxed every year. The ultra wealthy's wealth is primarily in business ownership or equity which is only taxed on gains when it's sold.

Sort of. While there are far too many complex exceptions and loopholes, a non pass through entity pays corporate tax on earnings. The tax on capital gains is a second tax on the same earnings.

> primarily in business ownership

Businesses which employ people and pay a whole host of taxes every year...

> or equity which is only taxed on gains when it's sold.

How would it be fair to tax someone on an asset that only has a theoretical value, which isn’t realized until it’s actually sold?

For the latter, the option would be to allow the person to sell at that amount. Thus if the government over estimated the worth you are capable of selling. This works far better with large businesses than homes due to the impact of emotional value.

RSUs and options are already taxed.

>The ultra wealthy's wealth is primarily in business ownership or equity which is only taxed on gains when it's sold.

So for the rich to unlock their wealth and make it usable they have to pay a tax? Well, let's tax it again, why not? And as for property already be taxed? Why not have two taxes? The more taxes the better. The war with Iran isn't going to pay for itself.

Making the rich poorer, but not actually doing anything to make the poor richer seems like a shitty way to fix inequality.