Its not making the argument that wealth taxes are good because wealthy people oppose them, only that their point of view on the topic is deeply self serving and masquerading as an objective analysis.
in the spectrum of taxes I think would rank them in decreasing order of fairness as (Vices, Consumption, Income, Wealth)...
Wealth tax is really rough because you can lose money on an asset AND lose more w/ the taxation on the capital base. At least with an income tax it's, hypothetically, only in the case of profit.
Wealth Tax is kind of like mandatory quotas. Income tax is like sharecropping.
Consumption is like sharing your goods consumption with society (think Potluck)
Vices is actually a disincentives structure for things proven to be societally disastrous or distasteful
And of course the devil is in the details entirely, because loopholes and policy can change it entirely.
No one claimed wealthy people aren't cherry picking their data to serve their own pre-existing bias. Only that, like a tobacco study funded by the tobacco industry, their claims are subject to a very evident bias and so should not be given the same weight as claims by those not suffering that bias.
If we grant that this argument is valid, do the same implications apply to the contrapositive case? E.g. people who aren't wealthy that support wealth taxes (or higher taxes on people who earn more than them).
Fair, but that's a weak stance. We should debate the consequences, implementation, and rationale of wealth taxes, not ascribe motivations to their supporters/dissenters.
