Nothing is wrong with being wealthy after developing a coveted and high-demand skillset.

The point is that it's the ultra-wealthy you need to be concerned with.

This misses the point as to why though: because it's not an incremental ladder, it's an exponential one - the wealth consolidated by the billionaire class is buying politics. It has an outsized influence on the thinking and mindset of the political classes they donate too and talk to on weekends.

This isn't just an issue like bribery it's more insidious then that: when your political leaders spend most of their "leisure" time in the company of these people, they adopt their values, listen to their thoughts and give everything a favorable view - more of hearing then you and I will ever get.

After all it's hard to be down on a guy who's put you up for the afternoon at his mansion, and even though you know it's a bad look to take him up on it it sure is nice he keeps offering the master guest suite if you want to stay the night.

This is just hand waving. Sure the billionaire has exponentially more, but there are very few of them.

We won’t solve inequality by taxing the billionaires it’ll be from taxing the upper-middle class. Just like the states with more equality in Europe do.

If you’re in the top 25% of income you’ll need to make some sacrifices if you want to solve the problem.

There are very few of them, and yet they control the vast majority of the country's wealth. The top 1% owns 55% of all the valuable assets in the United States. The top 10% owns 85% of all valuable assets. Most of the remaining 15% of assets are owned by pension funds and small-time landlords.

Just by taxing that top 10% (roughly people who earn over 200k/yr), the government would get access to 85% of all the nation's wealth.

That’s exactly my point. It’s not the billionaires who own most of the wealth, but the top 10% which includes people making over $200k per year. There are LOTS of those folks. That’s where the bill of the wealth is.

No, that's where about 30% of the wealth is. The bulk of the wealth is the 55% that is owned by the top 1%, roughly people making over $550,000/yr

What is "55%" if not "most of the wealth"?

The first half of your comment and the second half contradict.

I forget the exact statistic, but did you know that something like 70% of those on the Forbes 400 Richest list are entirely self made? Did you know that the vast majority of millionaires in the US received $0 in inheritance, and far more received less than $10k? The rich, by and large, made their wealth in their lifetime with their own means.

I say this because we need to make better arguments and be more honest with the situation. No, we aren’t entitled to the money of the rich just because “they have too much” or something. Redistribution is desireable because the economics are fundamentally changing with winner take all economies, regulatory capture, the ability to influence government policy with wealth, and the massive increase in the general welfare achieveable with stronger redistribution.

Getting mad at rich people because they have bigger numbers in their bank account is a weak argument, disingenuous, and immoral. The truth is much simpler: redistribution results in a more successful society.

Perhaps you missed my point - I was specifically making the argument of non-Googlers. Google Engineers and SV salaries do not represent software engineering ecosystem and the average salary.

Also, please don't assume my gender.

Edit: Pony up for what? It's not a zero sum game.

Edit: Lol, I am a "He dude". :)