This is because the "winners" are overwhelmingly well-connected, often sociopathic financiers and management types rather than technological innovators. Even in the case of the latter, I would argue that no one has ever personally created a billion dollars' worth of value, perhaps with the exception of certain great inventors (many of whom, such as Nikola Tesla and Philo Farnsworth, died penniless.) Thus, just about every great fortune is a result of the workers not owning the means of production. It was the company's employees who generated most of the value, and yet the profit largely ends up in a handful of pockets.

Most wealth is in the hands of MBA/frat boy types, and well deserves to be weighed down with draconian taxes. It is a shame that there is anywhere for these parasites to flee to.

I simply disagree with PG, in that I do not believe that most wealth inequality is explained by differences in actual productivity. In every society I know of, the wealthiest people are largely the least productive in any real sense - they obtain wealth by skimming the output of others.

According to the government and my tax rate, I'm a winner. Most people I know that went to grad school are winners. As an example, the income cutoff for being unable to deduct interest on student loans is ~$140K for a joint filing.

So the only way you can deduct your interest from your student loans is if you didn't actually do well in applying your education and getting a well paying job. I.e. punish the winners.

This example isn't about billionaires. It's about people that make only a small amount more than the median salary. They're punished like this all the time, and it's bad for society.

[note: if you don't get paid well because you are a struggling musician, or social worker, my analogy of using your college degree well is not relevant. It's a careerist analogy]