Why not?
You pay taxes on your house's value even if you haven't sold it. Then you're gonna pay more taxes on the sale if you DO sell it. Nobody's complaining about that.
This isn't a counter-argument. If we're talking taxes, then the value in question would be the value it held at years' end, when you pay your taxes. The same way your house property value is assessed. Or your income.Tesla can go up to $1000 and back down to $600. If you didn't sell it at $1000, then you never made that money. I swear.. Some of these people crying about "more taxes" just don't understand how shit works.
Progressive tax brackets; I was trying to broadly describe a system with increasing tax brackets. The current top bracket in the USA is set at around $500k, so picture new tax brackets at, say, $5m and then a new final at $50m. You can add some more gradations in there if you like, I'm not fussed.
I did mean it to be the effective tax rate, however, and I know I didn't make that clear enough. The tax rate of 37% at the top right now, for instance, is not the effective tax rate; that's before exceptions and loopholes and so on are considered. And I'm talking about effective tax rates, so that's after those considerations. I'm specifying this because it's easier to compare effective tax rates between nations than it is the statutory tax rates, since the circumstances for how things work from there are wildly different between jurisdictions; effective tax rates bring us right back to "how much is your net take-home, after taxes?"
- - - Updated - - -
Like, if anyone wants to challenge me on a "but how could someone live with taxes that high", if you can't get by with your meager tens of millions of net after-tax income, then your problem isn't the tax system.
Progressive brackets really shouldn't be this complicated a concept, but it seems like I have to re-explain a system nearly everyone already deals with every year, every time these debates come up.