> The only purpose of the salary taboo is to keep rich people rich.

While it is part of the motivation, calling it the only purpose is just hilariously wrong, completely lacks any nuance/empathy, and a single case of something existing outside of the "only purpose" statement proves it wrong immediately.

My brother ex-communicated my dad because he wouldn't stop hounding him for money. My brother became wealthy at a young age, and made the unfortunate mistake of divulging his finances to my narcissistic father. My father made terrible financial decisions in his life and subsists entirely on social security. He also bragged routinely about cheating on my mom, who got the courage to pull us out of that situation when we were kids. Any extra money I have would go to my mom, not my piece of crap dad.

I can't imagine how terrible it would be if he simply knew how much money I make.

Your dad is a product of the salary taboo. The salary taboo creates a weird societal emphasis that associates a person's worth to their income, hence to certain kinds of narcissism.

I mean, maybe you're right. But also, parent probably knows his Dad a bit better than you, so maybe you shouldn't assume that some kind of generic statement about society for sure applies to other people?

This is the "lacking in nuance" thing that parent was talking about.

The really rich are not so because of the salaries they draw, if any.

Salary transparency can help individuals by revealing their unfair pay relative to their peers. Correcting such injustices are not big money overall, they're not going to create meaningful wealth distribution, it's not going to make the rich noticeably less rich.

The rich people are the ones giving lower salaries, thanks to the salary taboo, while also hiding their own income, also thanks to the salary taboo.