It's clear that the author of this article has missed the point brought up by the ProPublica's story. The system isn't fair for everyone and it's relaxed towards the upper echelons. The author also assumes that everyone is part of the stock market and it's a community wealth pool. Why is it wrong that Jeff Bezos has to sell stock or have an actual income paycheck to pay for his wealth tax? The author says it would be bad because it would affect every shareholder negatively due to the lower stock value. Yes, it probably would, but value of stocks is impacted by externalities all the time, why would this possible scenario be the bad one? My point being, the author starts by stating how the ProPublica's article is at fault by technical standards and proceeds to give biased subjective opinions on how it did so.
> The system isn't fair for everyone and it's relaxed towards the upper echelons.
Isn't the author's primary point that everyone knows its unfair in this manner (Similar to how most of the world is) and the violation of privacy isn't justified because it didn't reveal anything new that wasn't extensively documented already?
> Why is it wrong that Jeff Bezos has to sell stock or have an actual income paycheck to pay for his wealth tax?
Is it your position that only people who are invested in public companies should have to pay wealth tax? If not, how do the people who have stock in private companies that cannot sell their stock expected to pay the wealth tax? If so, why would anyone invest in a public company?
