Those who will be subject to this rate of taxation are rent-seekers. No one can ‘earn’ that much otherwise. Addressing that rent-seeking behaviour is vital if society is to survive. In that case progressive tax on the rewards from rent-seeking is vital. It’s as simple as that. The imbalances that rent-seeking is creating, in wealth, in income, in opportunity in hope: all those inequalities will crush society. There is no choice but address these issues, now.
Hmm. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
If you earn over €1 million a year you must, by definition, be rent seeking.
Gerard Depardieu is, by definition, a rent collector. In our own economy, James Dyson is. JK Rowling is.
I don’t doubt at all that some who earn that sort of money are successful in seeking and collecting economic rents. I do rather doubt that all are: Daniel Craig for example. We might say that yes, OK, he’s gaining a rent through controlling the world’s supply of Daniel Craig. Even through copyright on movies.
Although that’s not quite what we usually mean about people “rent seeking” really.
Imagine, say, that The Courageous State became a best seller. Sells a couple of million copies as people realise that this really is the blueprint for the desired society. Ritchie would therefore earn well over a million in the year that happened (yes, I do know what his contract looks like, I’ve seen the standard one from the same publisher). Would we then say that Ritchie was rent seeking successfully?