>I think you're extending "working class" to mean "people who live on wages instead of capital". But most people make an additional distinction inside wage earners between workers and professionals, i.e. mechanics, factory workers, nurses, assistants vs. doctors, lawyers, software engineers, managers, etc.

This is a meaningless distinction because there was a time where mechanics and factory workers also made 6 figure salaries. The divide should always be between someone who makes most of their money from labor rather than capital. Actors and basketball players are not people that I think should necessarily be more impacted by a wealth tax.

It maybe was meaningless when that was true, but unfortunately it isn't now. There are so many differences between the professional class and the working class that it's hard to really think where to start, huge things like health outcomes, educational opportunities, bankruptcy risk, air pollution, wealth generation, political engagement, social politics, fertility rate.

I don't disagree that there are also huge differences between people making income from wages vs. capital, but that's beside the point.

Your comment about actors and basketball players confuses me a little. I think those are textbook high wage earners, not people who primarily live on capital (at least until they retire anyway). And presumably yeah, once you cross $100m (which I would guess not that many actors/athletes really do), it seems reasonable for a wealth tax to kick in. Isn't wealth wealth? Why should we make carve outs for specific professions?

I don't want to diminish the importance of the distinction between income coming from wages vs capital, but I think there is also an important divide between people who are able to get ahead/accumulate wealth, and those who have to work as hard as they can just to scrape by.