Looking at many of the big companies, that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad idea.

To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even when they're already massively profitable, is one of the biggest issues with modern capitalism. It's how you get the world's most profitable (non-financial) company switching its focus to nickel-and-diming its customers for services because it's run out of new human beings to sell iPhones to, and how you get every video game company switching to scummy fomo and gambling to maximize shareholder revenue instead of mindshare, and how you get every company jumping over themselves to sell your data even if you're already paying for the product. Companies should be able to get to the point where leaving money on the table for the good of their customers, and society, is a valid move.

Okay, but this would disincentivize individuals from building multiple successful companies after a certain point of personal success.

No it wouldn't. It would cease to further incentivize them. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, maybe you don't need external incentives for your behavior? Maybe you should be encouraged to simply do whatever you find most fulfilling, without financial reward?

> dis·in·cen·tiv·ize

> verb

> discourage (a person or course of action) by removing an incentive.

Regardless, though, how exactly would your proposal not prevent someone from building future companies? If stock is considered monetary wealth (the only viewpoint from which we have billionaires), they would be forced to... What? Give away their existing stock in order start a new successful company?

I think we should scale income tax based on wealth personally

That will just lead people to outsource their wealth by whatever means, so that it doesn’t formally count as their wealth anymore, but they effectively still control it.

Then I hope we can couple it with a well funded IRS.

In theory this would be difficult to do unlike the games that occur now because you don't merely need to suggest that you're not earning the income. You can't give it to a family member or it gets it with a hefty gift tax. You can't stuff it into a shell corp because you still own the shell corp. You could donate it to a charity which you control which is a thing that happens now.

Or maybe you don’t receive it in the form of whatever formally counts as wealth in the first place.

Our tax law definitions of fair market value are sufficient that I think this is a non critical issue.

You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes?

GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth.

> You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes?

Sure

> GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth.

Well good luck then.