> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable.

* To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S.

These days, instead of citing nebulous public good, perhaps it could be thought of as NOA and SOA fees: Nation Owners' Association fees, and State Owners' Association fees. You can look for a different neighborhood, or contribute to improve this one.

Who are these non-wealthy individuals who can't afford ramen but hold over $100 million in assets of _publicly traded companies_?

> the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S.

This was a representational issue, not non-transactional taxation. Property taxes existed in many colonies 100 years before the revolution.

It is accurate that the latest incarnation*, the supposed Harris version, within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradeable assets (i.e., not shares of private startups or real estate).

Not usually mentioned: even for this illiquid group there would still be an additional deferred tax of up to 10% on the unrealized capital gains upon exit.

* Once passed, anything like this is unlikely to escape tinkering until it matches most other versions, that are not limited to "tradable". Look at how worried farms are, for example, another relatively cash neutral but cap gain increasing growth (ahem) business.

> without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable

Correction: without SEEMING exceptionally wealthy or even ramen profitable. By, say, kneecapping your own profit. So that you don't pay as much taxes. Which is the entire problem we're trying to solve.

In practice, these people ARE wealthy. Just perhaps not on paper (depending the paper you look at). Of course when you observe their life, they are obviously filthy rich.

So we have an accounting problem. The papers don't accurately reflect the reality.

It’s hard to put into pithy terms but check out Citibank’s former top trader on wealth inequality and why we need to find a way to tax back some of the wealth from the rich: https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw

Thanks for this, watched a few of his videos and I think it will really change my view on tax going forward.

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it.

On the contrary, many variations of proposals (they keep popping up) cover partnerships or other forms of company holders as well.

Even in the Harris plan, though not usually talked about, even for the illiquid not-tradable group there would be a new deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit. To be fair, "exit" implies an ability to pay that.

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it

In that case, this is the end of public companies as we know it.

So no more publicly traded companies. Now they only way to invest is to be in an elite social circle.