> Let's say that there was a 1% wealth tax on all wealth over $1b.
This is what the article disingenuously(?) leaves out.
If a society wanted to deplete billionaires, it could put a wealth tax on just the dollars above and including the billionth dollar that an individual nominally owned.
The idea is that anyone who isn't a billionaire wouldn't be affected. Making this tax rate be 1% has the added advantage that you can call it "the 1% tax", because it would only apply to (a small subset of) the top 1% of richest people.
I don't know how many Americans became multi-billionaires by founding companies in their twenties, but here is a list of billionaire founders of internet companies:
A tax on the top 1% of net worth households would start much lower than a billion dollars. A quick google search says it's around $10 million. That's more on the order of a medium-large car dealership or similar local business than a significant share in a megacorporation.
This is what the article disingenuously(?) leaves out.
If a society wanted to deplete billionaires, it could put a wealth tax on just the dollars above and including the billionth dollar that an individual nominally owned.
The idea is that anyone who isn't a billionaire wouldn't be affected. Making this tax rate be 1% has the added advantage that you can call it "the 1% tax", because it would only apply to (a small subset of) the top 1% of richest people.
I don't know how many Americans became multi-billionaires by founding companies in their twenties, but here is a list of billionaire founders of internet companies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8562379.stm