Depends on what’s taxed at 94%. If it’s wages, they’ll just switch to passive 8ncome or stock/loans as they use now. If it’s all income, there’s going to be total change in the us compensation system.

▲

AngryData 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots and/or changes in how income is defined, so in the end I don't think it would matter. It would have to settle one way or another in short order, although it could get pretty bloody.

	▲	jleyank 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For whatever reasons, there were weren’t riots in the 50’s. Perhaps the complex financial games weren’t present, or perhaps information flow was insufficient to reveal them. Or, maybe, income inequality was much smaller and there wasn’t ways to massively increase one’s holdings. There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list.
	▲	noncoml an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't know how you simplify things so much... Do you want 94% tax on stocks? Why stop at stocks? How about property? Your house's net worth? The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare? Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance? Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires? At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944? If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit.