There is no crime alleged.
It doesn't require a crime ...
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
If there is no implied crime, why are these folks having their contractual earnings confiscated? And if these earnings are confiscated by act of congress, do those whose earnings have been confiscated have any right to due process, as would any citizen?
What's next - taxing Rush Limbaugh at 90% because the democrats don't like the fact that he makes millions of dollars criticizing them?
Unless you can prove each individual committed a crime, by a fair trial, a de facto fine should not be levied against them.
There is no crime alleged.
But a tax law that is written to target a specific person or group of people to punish them after the fact for receiving compensation just because the government doesn't like the type of compensation is the same thing. It is also an ex post facto law that is prohibited by the same clause in the Constitution.
That's the point. There is a government levied punishment without the accusuation of a crime. There are no due process protections, no trial, no jury, no nothing but guilt by legislative fiat. Even if a crime was alleged it is not the domain of the Legislative branch to determine guilt.
The implied crime is ‘being too rich’ ....remember the liberal definition of rich is anyone who has more than you do. Salem Witches say ‘welcome to the club’!