This to me is one of the biggest problems talking about taxation and wealth in the US. $50k is nothing you can really live off in most (by population) parts of California. $100k would make you well-off elsewhere but makes you poor in the Bay Area. While I'm generally for some degree of wealth redistribution, I'm afraid this will hit many people who aren't actually wealthy, but just scraping by.
Maybe if they got a rent controlled place 15 years ago.
That said, it's confounding to me that eliminating the mortgage deduction, and eliminating SALT deductions were considered progressive ideals, right up until the Republicans implemented it. I don't know if it's people preferring policy ideals that sound good on paper, or if they're being applied to some richer population than the one whomever happens to be in, or if this is just the result of tribal echoing, but what we're left with isn't pretty.
The folks making $100k are incredibly under taxed in the US. In Sweden, the top tax bracket kicks in at about $77,000.
In Des Moines, you can buy a house for $100K. You can rent for $12K a year. Can ride a bike all over town, or live blocks from work. Its a whole different world.
If Des Moines offered similar opportunities, people would live there instead of San Francisco. Those opportunities are themselves a benefit that can’t be ignored. And if people live in SF even though the benefits don’t outweigh the increased cost of living, why should th government subsidize that lifestyle choice?