This "race" obsession is pretty much a US-specific thing. In a way it's understandable based on historical and cultural aspects.

Taxes on the rich mean either one of two things or the two things combined:

1. Tax on wealth, be it in possession or on an inheritance.
2. Tax on income.

Neither of which is going to make anything more expensive for the regular citizen.

Thank you for you thoughtfull response. I am still not convinced to call race a social construct. As fas as I can tell by your explanation, it is still biology, just more complicated than most people would presume (-you cannot really neatly categorise people into such broad categories like balck, white, asian and expect to be able to do research on that basis).

I also still think that race could have an effect on intelligence. I tried looking into it for a hot second and found almost nothing (that would speak for or against that theory). I mean, we have to treat people as individuals anyways, so it would not matter much if there is an effect, as far as I can tell. You could still be a genius or a dumbass no matter your background.

But what if culture is the source of differences between races? You say we have to explain the historical and current social forces that shape that culture. This is a little vague for me, because there is no Plan of action attached. What if we can sufficiently explain all the forces that shaped a culture. And then? We would have to try and change the culture, I guess. Don't know how that could work though. I certainly don't think that affirmative action is the way to do it.

But they do. If income tax is raised, you need to raise wages so that you earn same as you did before, which turns to raising prices for customers.

If you tax wealth - which usually is shares or apartments and such - your wealth need to create more income to pay the taxes. More dividents require higher prices, you need to raise rents if they tax your apts you're renting and so on.

The money has to some somewhere always and in a modern capitalistic society it comes from the market.

We are talking about taxing people who have more money than they need. Your premise that they should keep earning as much after a tax increase as before the tax increase is inherently flawed.

If we tax people who have more money than they need, this is very marginal group and have virtually no effect on people's welfare, but they still want their wealth to generate more wealth which turns to higher prices. This is also monet they invest to prevent the earnings to lose value due to inflation. 

Income and property taxes have a positive net effect in economy, kinda of. It's a misconception the money from the rich come exclusively from running bussines 

If you take a bit of money from the upper high classes, money that would generally be invested in long term funds and financial applications outside the country, and give them to very low income citzens, what happens?

Well, low income citizens will start buying essential goods. Food, water, maybe clothing. This higher consumer spending will make small and local bussines to earn more money, expand, hire. It will also increase demand for industry and services. The overall GDP will increase, and the state can even recoup some of this spending through other taxes

This can drive inflation, of course. But not because the rich was getting taxed, but because more people are looking for groceries 

This.  Board members will raise their salaries to offset taxes and increase CoGs.  Anybody who thinks the rich are going to take a loss without push back are crazy.

im a far center extremist

Race isn't based on "populations" in the genetic sense, so it can't be biologically-grounded. Race is mostly a loose social category based in part on superficial physical features and in part on arbitrary ancestral categories. The argument made by those who suggest there is a racial component to IQ (or a correlation between race and IQ) is that IQ is mainly heritable. But if the "groups" we are identifying as distinctive groups aren't genetic populations, the argument of heritability falls apart, because we aren't looking at distinct genetic populations with "White" vs. "Black". Many different populations constitute "white" and "black" respectively if we are going to be very specific with "population" or all humans are essentially one population if we are going to be general with what constitutes a "population." 

Furthermore, there is heavy mixing in the post-colonial era. African-Americans, on average, have 30% European ancestry and about 2% Indigenous American ancestry. African-Americans are also mixed between various different African populations, and as noticed in my first response -- Africa is extremely genetically diverse, so much so that Eurasians essentially look like a branch of East Africans who are distinctive from West Africans, who are distinctive from Central African foragers, and who are distinctive from Khoi-San (in order of more closely related to less closely related.) 

If somebody wants a theory of intelligence associated with race, they really need to ground it in the actual phylogeny of human beings, not social categories like "black", "white", etc.  

But really, I am skeptical there are significant group differences, even if you do that, because the features of our anatomy that seem to correspond the most to intelligence (such as brain capacity to body ratio, after controlling for epigenetic and environmental factors as an example) are roughly within a similar range across all Homo Sapiens, with more variations within groups than between them. Most differences in IQ score, as an example, between groups are caused by factors like culture, nutrition, and socio-linguistic biases. The race realists attempt to argue that IQ is mostly heritable (which isn't the same thing as being mostly genetic) but they're looking at the individual level to support that, and individual heritability isn't the same thing as heritability from being a member of a population group. Parents and children are much more closely related than any two people of the same "race." 

The whole reason why there are "Black" or "White" culture with only intermittent cross-over is because of segregation. The whole point of "affirmative-action" and integration is to eliminate segregation. 

So if there are aspects of "black culture" that keep people from advancing, they only dominate and limit black people because of the relative isolation from other cultures. 

Suppose it is true that "black culture" de-emphasizes academic achievement. Well concentrating black people, with a similar culture, into social institutions and geography are going to prevent them from seeing other cultures and perspectives (not from a distance, but right there) that might put more emphasis on academic achievement. 

This also applies to sociological groups. People of a working class background who might de-emphasize academic achievement (culturally) benefit from integration with people of higher-SES.

So merely saying "it is cultural, not much we can do" is a cop-out here. Why are the cultures segregated by race in the first place and why is this still mostly true even today?