And yet, it is the very potential of radical economic inequality that drive the creation of new inventions and innovations that make the modern world possible. Killing that potential is killing the goose that lays all the golden eggs - that's Graham's point: even small confiscatory wealth taxes will act as a significant deterrent to people who would otherwise start great companies that improve some aspect of the world, including by providing a livelihood to their employees.

I've been CTO for a dozen startups, and this sort of thing would almost certainly deter me from exerting the effort required to go through the always-grueling startup process. It's hard enough not getting screwed over as a founder without wealth taxes!

It's a problem of success though, right?

Assuming that you are incredibly successful, you may need to contribute a bunch of money (mostly from interest, not principal) back to the common good.

I really don't see Mark Zuckerberg (as an example) deciding not to create Facebook because if he was incredibly successful he'd have to pay a wealth tax. It just doesn't strike me as likely at all.

This is (sadly) Paul Graham taking a valid argument and turning it into a reductio-ad-absurdam.

the point is Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't do it in California if there was a wealth tax. Not that he wouldn't do it all.

I dunno, to be honest. If the Bay Area remained the same, modulo any wealth tax, then he'd probably still have come there for the talent.

It's not like he believed he was gonna end up a billionaire when he moved FB to California.