[BatmansMom]

I can't help but think there is an alternative to this dichotomy. If, for example, US were to institute a high-percentage income tax bracket for the wealthy (maybe 65% over $1m) and used that to pay for national healthcare, would that really impact start-up culture? Maybe it affects some business at large, but it means the average joe can get laid off and not stress about hospital bills, while still encouraging a "risk-hungry sector".

Tl;Dr: Europe could have trillion dollar companies and still lean heavily towards labor, just like we could

[RestlessMind]

> maybe 65% over $1m

Here in California, my marginal tax rate (if making over 1M) is already about 53%. In return, there is medi-cal (which is shitty[1]), 6 weeks of parental leave at 65% salary, crappy schools on average but excellent if one has a special needs kid etc. So not so great safety net.

Ironically, through a big tech job (which is supposed to be a rapacious corp with zero regards to employee wellness), I get far better protections - amazing insurance(s), 4 months of parental leave at full pay (including RSUs), all sorts of benefits etc etc.

The trade-off is clear to me. I want more of those trillion dollar corporations around me and have very little faith in Federal and California governments to improve their safety nets even if they jack up my marginal tax rate from 53 to 65%.

[1] but again, my Canadian and UK families have horror stories about their healthcare systems as well so there is that

[ipaddr]

If you live in New York you are already paying 56%.

There are 500,000 households making over a million if you divide that number into a single person making a million or more that would drop more.

That 9% of such a low base won't cover costs.