[makomk]

The whole point of proposals like the one the entire linked article is about is to make it seem like vast sums of money can be raised from seemingly small taxes on a few wealthy people by definining those taxes as an annual percentage of total wealth rather than income. The framing is meant to trick readers into mentally comparing the 2% tax it proposes and the 0-0.5% tax it claims the wealthy are currently paying with the familiar 20-40% or more they have to pay on their own income, when in reality the two are calculated in vastly different ways and the article gives readers no way of putting it in any more meaningful context.

[harimau777]

I'd compare the 2% tax to the average yearly gain in the stock market. Based on https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/average-stock-m... it appears that the overage again is about 7% to 10% depending on how you figure it. The rule of thumb that I've heard in investing is 5%.

Therefore, my conclusion is that a 2% wealth tax on the ultra-wealthy on average wouldn't even keep them from gaining wealth; they would just increase their wealth more slowly.

[eli]

Maybe if you only read the headline?

I find the article pretty clear, though brief and not very well written. The actual report it's discussing is crystal clear.

The situation is that the wealthy keep getting wealthier without generating any taxable income. Obviously a minimum income tax rate could not possibly solve this problem unless we also redefine income.