Stop telling people what will or won't irritate others right off the bat. There's no better way to wrongly speak for someone else. :)

More seriously, it's probably a good bet that most people haven't heard of McMaster Carr in general, and if they have, probably not in the context of having a smart or well designed website. So it's not a terrible article headline. And of all the click bait style headlines that could be used, it's probably the least offensive. At least they give you the name in the headline.

Replying to myself since it's too late to edit, but according to these numbers[1], it looks like this tax would hit about 52% of American households, so my "even the poorest of Americans" is a bit overwrought. And if we take the US median home price (~410k as of this year[2]) and exclude 75% of that (~307k), then this tax would hit ~30% of American households (~$481k net worth). Even at that, it's still quite a hurdle to clear to convince the top 1/3 of households support a 1% tax on their accumulated wealth.

[1]: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/ [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

Perhaps, but the Norway tax mentioned in the article kicks in at $174k net worth. That's a paid off house and a nearly drained 401k for even the poorest of Americans. Yes there is an exemption for part of the house, but even if it were 100% exempt, I think you're going to have a rough time getting support for taxing 1% of a retirement account worth less than the code section it's named for.

This is in part because the term "Asperger Syndrome"[1] (which has always been related to / a subtype of autism) is no longer used and is now just under the Autism label.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

I imagine that prosecutors don’t pierce the corporate veil for public companies often because “DA charges 87 year old grandmother with stake in Evil Corp in her pension fund with manslaughter, local union members brace for additional charges against members” doesn’t make for good headlines or good justice either.

The officers and board of the company aren’t protected by the corporate veil concerning their actions. They retain some degree of protection from actions of others within the corporation provided they did not have (or did not have a reason to suspect) knowledge of those activities. But to my knowledge that’s not special to officers, it applies to any employee which is why the rank and file Enron employees didn’t get prosecuted.