This article seems to suggest it would raise a fairly substantial amount.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/two-democrats-come-up-with-a...

That proposal is nothing like the discussion going on here.

“If that’s the case, it would have essentially no impact on revenue.“

Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”

> Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”

Can you expand on this? Why would you want to put a policy on the books, dealing with its side effects without achieving its objective? You're saying this as if it's obvious; to me, it's anything but.

> "Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”"

Because driving wealthy people and powerful businessmen out of your nation is obviously going to have bad effects that can't be reversed?

Because it's a waste of time, and likely that 90% tax comes with lower bands of 60-70 for the middle class (whatever remains of it anyway).

Also, it sets a precedent that people who work hard and are successful are bad and we should take all their money for the societal good.

If you don't recognize that particular ideology, it's one that has murdered millions of people worldwide in every place it's been implemented.

Because it's pointless virtue signaling...