>>>You're mixing Apple and rich elites.
>
>Apple is not an independent entity, it's mostly owned by institional investors and funds owned/controlled in turn mostly by elites wanting the best result for themselves. The decision to hoard abroad to avoid repatriation and tax, was made almost entirely by elites for their own benefit. And that was to avoid the prevailing rate about half what you and Ocasio-Cortez are proposing.
>
>>>I was for reducing the corporate rate and against reducing the marginal rate for individuals.
>
>Do you remember Buffett lamenting that he pays less tax than his secretary? This is because he isn't taxed for all his income at the marginal rate, but at the qualified dividend (much lower) rate or via unbooked capital gains including $ hoarded elsewhere. Increasing Warren's marginal rate to 70% will hardly make a dent in his pocket book, or in the tax take.
>
>>>Individuals who inherit billions should be taxed at 90% on any inherited money over a specified amount.
>
>Death duties, then. When that happened in the UK, many great family estates fell into disrepair or were dissolved because inheritors weren't left enough to maintain the estate. The National Trust picked up a lot of them so they could be restored/preserved by generous donations and the taxpayer, but now there's no taxable asset. Once again, 90% of $0 is $0 whereas 30% of whatever income the estate used to return, was at least something.
>
>>>We quickly fall into the trap of assuming that high individual rates will discourage entrepreneurs. The fact is that most of the wealth is not being accumulated by entrepreneurs. It's being accumulated by heirs and by financiers who contribute nothing.
>
>Why fall into that trap? Traditional cash-strapped entrepreneurs won't start out earning $10M to attract the punitive rates and by the time they are, they'll have structured their affairs to pay the punitive rates only on a fraction of income which they will hold up as a virtue signal, same as all the others.


Persuasive arguments.
Burke's justification of the murderous monarchy was even more erudite.

Jefferson's justification of slavery reached new levels of persuasiveness.

Nothing previously said by man had reached the heights of eloquence that Churchill used when dismissing Ghandi as an arrogant beggar.

For more contemporary examples of oratorical brilliance check out George Wallace, Orville Faubus and Strom Thurmond.

The endpoint of all those arguments was the oppression of the the "weak" by the "powerful" was foreordained and inevitable.