> Taxing the wealthy is the most popular way to lower the debt.

Let me clarify: Few in the mainstream of current politics and media want to discuss higher taxes on the uber wealthy (1B and up) - much less the very wealthy (100M and up).

It's only happening in a few places at the state and local level, but that's challenging because of the ability of the wealthy to move residence between states (something the pied a terre tax cleverly works around).

It also seems to have a lot more purchase these days in forums like this. My comment above about raising taxes would likely have received much more opposition 10 years ago. It seems like the consciousness here has shifted, probably because many here have a front row seat to the emergence of the tech oligarchy.

▲

ethbr1 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> My comment above about raising taxes would likely have received much more opposition 10 years ago. It seems like the consciousness here has shifted, probably because many here have a front row seat to the emergence of the tech oligarchy.

I think HN specifically, and the country more generally, has become disgusted with the magnitude of wealth concentration.

Very few here probably believe Ellison, Gates, Bezos, Page/Brin, Elon, or Zuckerberg don't deserve to be very rich.

But that reasonable "very" is 2-3 orders of magnitude less than their current net worth.

That's what many people feel is the broken part of end stage capitalism.

	▲	danans 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I think HN specifically, and the country more generally, has become disgusted with the magnitude of wealth concentration. I'd like to believe this, but the proof is in the pudding, the pudding being how they vote. Apart from a few well known politicians, most of them aren't running on a platform of countering oligarchs. A HNer might ask themselves: do I vote for the future where preserve low taxes in case I become massively wealthy, or do I vote for the future where I work for my income?