We make withholding contributions to our annual tax bill every paycheck, we can force wealthy people to make a large number of withholding contributions spaced throughout the year to avoid market effects from it happening all at once. If they over-contributed, they get a refund, and if they under-contributed, they owe a bill and possibly a penalty.
Social security and Medicare tax applies to all income.
This alone would be HUGE. It’s ridiculous we have a cap above which income isn’t taxed.
That’s cool and all but you’re addressing the WHY and not the HOW.
I’m not finance expert, but can’t think if any laws that disable a banks ability to lend.
There’s tons of regulations like this attempting to combat money laundering or doing business with terrorist orgs, rogue nations, etc.
I disagree, in good faith, with the end of lobbying. Emailing your congressperson is lobbying.
I totally agree with ending bribery, which is often thinly disguised as “lobbying” but is just honestly bribery.
Not in my experience. Seeing a large fraction of their paychecks taken out for taxes causes rage for some people.
As for rich people in general, most of them, AFAIK, actually built their wealth from ground up.
Why in the world would you think that’s the case? We could look up stats but we shouldn’t have to. You already realize that the children of self-made rich people will themselves become rich without any effort. Logically, it would follow that over generations there would end up being a much higher proportion of “descendants of self-made rich people” than “self-made rich people”.
But also with better building regulations. Some of those houses were flimsy, asbestos filled pieces of crap.
Rent control tends to decrease the supply of housing by making it unprofitable to build more. It turns into a lottery, massively helping the few who can find a good place but massively hurting those who can’t.
Firstly, I think your focus on housing is too narrow to solve wealth inequality.
Second, if landlords are handed a $100 monthly tax bill they tend to increase their tenants rent by $100 a month.
Third, you ignore the effects this will have on new home construction, which will be SEVERE.
Fourth, and this is a minor thing, I think when discussing housing policy we should always be trying to disincentivize suburban sprawl snd incentivize density. Having more people own single family homes is not necessarily a great thing, maybe better than having corporations rent them out but not as good as having more dense walkable transit filled urban cores. I’d even go so far as to say that while having people own condos is best, having people rent apartments is still better (on a large scale) than having people own single family houses.