[jjtheblunt]

> I think this illustrates ... why a very small wealth tax can be used for a lot of good in society.

isn't the accrued billion dollars what remains after a much larger amount was taxed at roughly 50%?

(of course could be spread across multiple years, but the essence remains)

How would the "very small wealth tax" be calculated, that you propose?

[__turbobrew__]

> wasn't the accrued billion dollars the remainder after being taxed at a much higher rate (around 50% federal and state, if California) as it was being accrued?

Most capital owned by billionaires is not taxed until it is sold, so in the case of Hashimoto and others they most likely have not paid tax on the majority of their wealth.

> How would the "very small wealth tax" be calculated, that you propose?

In the same way we calculate income tax, we make it up. Most numbers I see are between 1-3%. We could just start at 1% as that is the most conservative number.

[mediaman]

He has this wealth as a function of having sold the equity in the company he co-founded, so in fact virtually all his wealth has already gone through a tax event at the federal and state levels.

[GavinMcG]

50%? No, that’s for high wages. And previous taxation is irrelevant: we as a society get to choose what is taxed, and there’s no inherent reason why only a single tax should apply to someone. Sales taxes, for example (which disproportionately burden those with less wealth) are paid out of one’s already-taxed income.

[rpearl]

> How would the "very small wealth tax" be calculated, that you propose?

It is possible to tax unrealized assets. We already do. For example, a property owner pays property tax based on the value of their property, even when they are not selling it.

It is possible for billionaires to borrow against their held assets. It is therefore also possible to calculate a tax on them.