I agree with your premise and proposed policy.
You make the following statement with which I disagree.
"Democrats need to redefine the problem and reframe the debate if they really want to serve the 90% of us who are fighting for our share of the 30% of this nation’s wealth left to us by the obscenely wealthy top 10%."
Your break point at 90/10 is not positioned properly. A person at that 90th percentile is not obscenely wealthy. They barely have enough money to retire comfortably.
Using data from:
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
The net worth of a 90th percentile individual is about $1.2 million. I think you need to move that marker.
Maybe 99/1 would be the proper break point. The net worth of the 99th percentile individual is about $11 million, not obscene but excessive for sure.
Same deal if you want to set income targets a 90th percentile household income is about $200 thousand (that would often be a two-income household). I don't see that as even excessive. You have to raise the bar to at least 98th percentile to get too excessive.
https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Household-Income
That link puts the 98th percentile household income at around $360 thousand. That is still not obscene but maybe excessive.
I suggest you not target the top 10 percent but the top 1 percent.
99 percent of the U.S. population does not have excessive wealth or excessive household income.
If we look at this through this lens, is income or wealth inequality really the problem you make it out to be. If less than 1 percent of the population is the problem, is it something we really need to fix?
I would say yes, it needs to be fixed because of appearances. It looks bad when some people have so much money. The problem in not really fiscal it is perception.
You know that Elon Musk does not even take a salary? You can cap his income but he really only has an income when he sells stock. Would you then try to put a limit on how much stock he can sell?
The real problem is not inequality it is poverty. The bottom 30% have on wealth and tiny incomes. Making the rich poorer will not help the poor. If you want to take from the rich and give it to the poor lower top incomes, raise the bottom ones.
I am not sure raising the minimum wage is the right answer, it would seem obvious but the devil is in the details. We don't raise the minimum wage casually because it has consequences for those we would be trying to help. The minimum wage would go farther of none of it had to go to pay payroll taxes, sales taxes or medical insurance or if housing was not so expensive. If you want the poor to be less poor stop taxing them. Payroll taxes have got to go or maybe switch the paradigm, instead of cutting off the taxes at earned incomes around $100 thousand, start the taxes there.
TEK
