> I thought "the sentiment" was "tax the rich because they can afford it".
Not "because they can afford it" but "because it doesn't hurt." The "hurt" I'm referring to isn't the wallets of the rich, rather the existing revenue, the balance of things, society, etc.
The true sentiments will always depend on who/what is being taxed and who/what is advocating for the tax. Almost everyone I see supporting this particular tax is supporting it more as a means of "punishment" that can be levied against the rich.
> Taxing people with money makes the most sense.
Sure. Not sure how you would tax people without money... but it is always going to come down to "how much" and "what for", more than anything. Then you have to contend with downstream effects. People with money can and will move if they feel they are being taxed too much. This is no different than setting the price of a widget. You can always raise it but then you will have less buyers.
Not "because they can afford it" but "because it doesn't hurt." The "hurt" I'm referring to isn't the wallets of the rich, rather the existing revenue, the balance of things, society, etc.
The true sentiments will always depend on who/what is being taxed and who/what is advocating for the tax. Almost everyone I see supporting this particular tax is supporting it more as a means of "punishment" that can be levied against the rich.
> Taxing people with money makes the most sense.
Sure. Not sure how you would tax people without money... but it is always going to come down to "how much" and "what for", more than anything. Then you have to contend with downstream effects. People with money can and will move if they feel they are being taxed too much. This is no different than setting the price of a widget. You can always raise it but then you will have less buyers.