We can have both carbon taxes AND wealth taxes, of course. Carbon taxes seem to be an excellent way to curb carbon emissions, which is necessary, but they're also regressive, and unlikely to be sufficient to pay for the things we expect the government to provide.
PG may not be impacted by a California wealth tax, but that doesn't mean his opposition isn't self-interested. If it succeeds in California it could be taken up by other states, or the US as a whole - maybe wiser (in PG's view) to nip it in the bud.
It may be taken up by other states, but the US as a whole seems a bit of a stretch. The typical liberal states, sure.
Indeed. The parent is arguing that the wealth tax is better than, say, a carbon tax, which is considered a fairly efficient form of taxation.
> >I suspect that Mr. Graham is wringing his hands over potentially having to cut a large (in absolute terms, but small in relative ones) cheque to the government in the future, >No. That is a strawman if I ever see one. Could Mr. Graham not be against this tax because it's an objectively bad tax with many unintended consequences?
To add to this, Paul Graham doesn’t live in California, and would not pay the tax. He’s opposed on principle.