I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)