The editors of the Washington Post endorse a steep tax on capital gains and then continue with this:
Shrinking the wealth gap calls for a two-pronged attack: offer more opportunity to those at the bottom and trim the undue advantages of those at the top. In this editorial, we address the latter issue by discussing how best to tax the rich. The smartest approach is the one endorsed in 2018 by economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): significant, broad-based taxes on capital gains, coupled with similarly efficient levies on transfers of wealth through gifts and inheritance. As the OECD report concluded, this promises the greatest increase in equity with the fewest costly side effects.
The distinction between a wealth tax and a high tax on capital gains is that a wealth tax makes it tough to stay rich while the capital gains tax makes it harder to become rich.
I would venture a guess that after ten years of both a tax on capital gains and a wealth tax the “wealth gap” would be even greater than when you started. It’s a matter of simple mathematic, i.e. don’t raise the bridge lower the river. Reduce the number of people in the U. S. with entry level skills or a command of English insufficient to get a job beyond one that pays minimum wage or lower. Focusing on the rich may make for good sound bites but I doubt it will accomplish as much as its proponents think including raising revenue or reducing the “wealth gap”.
It also depends on which wealth gap you’re trying to shrink: that between the top 1% of income earners and the top .01% of income earners or the gap between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. Sounds like they’re focused on the former.
