[jeremy_arnold]

OP here. Three things:

1. Most countries that have tried wealth taxes have either abandoned them or have had to constantly readjust them due to logistical difficulties and capital flight. They're elegant in theory, but very difficult practically.

2. The problem with ProPublica's coverage is that it was a tax policy argument masquerading as a news story. If they wanted to advocate for whatever policy position, that's fine! But to paint specific individuals as underpaying in taxes is deeply disingenuous. It poisons the civic well and gives casual readers the sense that something nefarious is happening.

3. Violating right-to-privacy laws to illustrate a policy proposal is bad! Really bad!

[md_]

1. Two points: a) The capital flight argument is silly. The US has a global tax on tax residents already, alongside an onerous reporting scheme. b) So what? Again, I don’t understand your argument, which seems to be “this is just how it works—taxes on unrealized gains are rare.” Indeed they are rare, but isn’t that the entire point of the ProPublica piece?

2) No, it’s illustrating the consequences of current tax policy. I read (or misread?) your argument as “effective tax rates on total wealth is the wrong metric” (and you go on to suggest that looking at such a metric puts one as an ignorant). Why is this the wrong metric? Economists like Piketty and Milanovic—going back to Kuznets—have looked at returns on capital vs labor. Effective tax rates on capital are one such component. Why is it disingenuous to look at such a metric?

3) Really? I dunno. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873?