> No one is proposing a tax that would apply to all your assets

Yes they are, that’s literally what a wealth tax is.

How were you defining wealth?

The actual proposals at the time I wrote this was a wealth tax applying to wealth greater than $50 million.

That’s substantially different from one that starts at $0.

Isn’t PG using that as an example and actually says it’s simpler to calculate that way?

This doesn’t feel like a generous reading.

I’m not against a wealth tax and I’m not aligned with PG, but I do think it’s important to be generous in your interpretation. I think PG is just arguing wealth taxes are unfair on founders.

$2m starting point is reasonable btw, that’s a good ballpark for a founders share at pre seed.

I think it's presented in a way that makes him sound very reasonable, and make a wealth tax sound very stupid.

- A small time founder losing 2/3rds of their stock - OH NO, wealth tax is terrible!

- A businessman worth $162 of stock ends up being worth billions as their stock appreciates, despite having to pay wealth taxes. Huh, maybe wealth tax is alright.

Returning to this: even if he were somehow "misrepresenting" the idea of wealth tax - and there are many variants - that does not make him wrong.

My original point was that when PG is writing outside of his core competencies, it's usually about subjective opinions. Such as, is wealth tax a good or bad thing? That is a subject about which you can have an opinion, but there is no absolute.

My concern is that when people say "he doesn't know anything when he talks about, say, economics or politics" what they really mean is "I disagree with him and therefore he is wrong." (I disagree with PG on many such things, but that's like, just my opinion, man)

I guess I'm invested in the debate because I want people to be more open-minded and charitable and not less.