[vmception]

Okay I read this.

It gives no details on what loopholes would be closed, and then conflated that with tax cheats and that a well funded IRS will solve both.

A well funded IRS will just be rubber stamping the compliant tax reducing methods faster. Although most constituent's experience with the IRS is retroactive and adversarial, wealthier people's experience with the IRS is pre-emptive and collaborative. It is a totally different experience.

I don't get the impression that the people and organizations identified here would ever be subject to these taxes, even if the law was passed without any debate.

[sour-taste]

I believe most of this is based on public reporting by propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...

[vmception]

Okay, I don't agree with the "true tax rate" terminology or methodology. Not necessarily in response to you, just that article and for anyone passing by.

Changing values of assets are not income. Taxing net assets would require so much extra liquidity that may not exist, and if people wanted to be compliant with a wealth tax they will have to avoid illiquid assets which would be the most counterproductive fiscal and monetary policy for the economy. You want to get more people to go into illiquid assets to make them liquid, big yikes.

It is disingenuous trying to equate "$1 added to their net worth" to a wage worker adding $1 to their net worth, even if it was purely for explanation purposes. But here it is intentionally made to seem like something else. Its would make more sense to add a sales/excise tax to the buyers that push up the price of assets as they are the only ones moving liquid value around. Like a new uptick rule. Makes more sense to tax appraisers for illiquid assets if they uptick. I don't think any of these make real sense, but makes more sense than taxes people subject to the whims of the market.