> Nobody clever enough to earn that kind of money keeps 98% of it in an illiquid private investment.

It’s interesting how often people say stuff like this. I don’t mean to presume anything about your knowledge of the habits of the ultra-wealthy— but how do you know this?

Mark Cuban, for instance, claims he would need to liquidate assets, including potentially his basketball team [1]. I agree it might not cause a crash, but certain billionaire-dominated industries, such as sports teams, might become increasingly foreign-owned.

[1] https://youtu.be/rCd2vWsWWrI start watching at 4:50

Rich people can get a line of credit secured on their assets. He’s probably bullshitting.

Cuban is straight up lying about how he might need to sell his basketball team. Or he's lying about how much stock he owns. Either way he lacks credibility.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/mark-cuban-i-have-close-to-a...

Fair. In my source, he seemed to imply he would have to sell it — but didn’t actually say so explicitly. He definitively stated he would have to liquidate assets, generally speaking, after a year.

He may have stated the need to sell his team elsewhere. I seem to remember reading that but it was possible I was jumping to conclusions.

That said, I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe him when he claims not to have enough cash to pay the tax.

Again, I find it weird how some people think about this subject. Everyone is so intent on accusing billionaires of being liars.

Why on earth would you believe billionaires at their word on a wealth tax. Keep in mind a good number of these billionaires have publicly stated they are close to as prosecuted as the Jews in Germany. I wouldn’t trust them an inch.

first one: The amount of liquid assets they have is probably based on the amount of liquidity they currently require. They would suddenly require more liquidity, which very likely would mean they would need to liquidate, from any initial condition. And this repeats every year.

2: if only a few people need to liquidate, it will increase supply and lower the values

3: don't pay 2% and what do you think they'll take? your freedom? that is arguably worth more than your holdings.

your criticism of my criticism doesn't even scratch it, much less negate it like your bias confirms.

And you missed the main counter you could have made.. which would be that middle class people could buy funds of the newly liquidated assets. It doesn't counter the point that it would hurt these businesses, but it would at least counter the protectionist alarmism. Sheesh, I have to do everything myself