This is true, but the implications are contextual... imo. First, the goal of a wealth tax (for many) is to diminish large pools of wealth... or curb their grow

This is true, but the implications are contextual... imo. First, the goal of a wealth tax (for many) is to diminish large pools of wealth... or curb their growth. Wealth taxes started gaining attention again in relation to Picketty, The 99% & such. PG isn't being disingenuous. This is goal of a wealth tax. Second, a wealth tax has a floor. Most american proposals have been for a very high floor, and/or tax rate progression. If you have $100m and the floor is $50m, the wealth tax can only take half. Third... there is money going in and out besides the wealth tax. Interest is the big one. The table is correct either way, but the implication of a 2% wealth tax over 60 years, assuming a 6% average rate of return is that your $100m will become $1bn instead of $3.3bn. That's the 70%. Maybe 6% is unfair. For the currently very wealthy (Zuck, Bezos, Buffet) they earned more in recent decades. Maybe 4% would be fairer. Maybe 8%. IDK. Also, consumption is relevant... at least below a certain level of wealth. Consumption rounds to zero for Gates/Buffet/Bezos levels of wealth. A point to note (for proponents) is that a wealth tax will not produce very much tax. It is much smaller than a VAT, income tax or such. Whether you are for it or against it, think of it more like tariffs. It's an economic policy. The tax itself is a side effect. I do think it's over-the-top to represent these only as 60-year effects. The conclusion that a 0.5% tax represents 25% of your stock is... that seems wrong. Over 10 years that is just 4.5% and the founder will be paying taxes out of interest/revenue. If it affects founders' country/regime selection, it would make sense to move after you make the money. Most of the tax is in the future.