The "your parents" are only harmed if the public benefit from taxes don't offset the benefit that is received directly in the funding of the 401k or other relevant investment accounts.
In America anyway, the wealthiest 1% own 53% of the stock market. I highly doubt that the "your parents" would benefit more from funding of their investment accounts than they would benefit from the tax revenue generated. Of course my assumption is highly dependent on public policy.
With that logic we should never prosecute corporations doing nefarious things, because that might hurt their profits which will hurt those who's retirement funds depend on said $EVIL_CORP.
"Go ahead BP and VW, keep polluting the world, we're not gonna touch you because we don't want your shares to go down and in turn the retirement funds of those tied to you."
Am I the one seeing the slippery slope here, or am I being crazy?
> With that logic we should never prosecute corporations doing nefarious things, because that might hurt their profits which will hurt those who's retirement funds depend on said $EVIL_CORP.
Nobody claims this. My initial comment was only pointing out that the claim that nobody will be harmed by the windfall tax was false.
While you seem to be trying to say that bank shareholders are astronomical or just wealthy people and aren't worthy of sympathy. You seem to fail to realize that most 401k holders are bank shareholders as a function of their holdings. They are arguable more hurt than the people who get large gains.
I'm not defending anyones point here but pointing out that you haven't quite grasped how the economy works or alternatively you like snarky little value add comments.
Won't someone think of the poor bank shareholders? /s