Is the blog post "against taxing very wealthy people"? Literally, it is a demonstration by mathematics of the effect of a tax on capital. Polemically, it is a

Is the blog post "against taxing very wealthy people"? Literally, it is a demonstration by mathematics of the effect of a tax on capital. Polemically, it is an argument by induction that a higher level of such a tax will discourage junior entrepreneurs from attempting to create start-ups in a jurisdiction. What's clever about the polemic strategy is how it appeals to the hopes and fears of young entrepreneurs who have not yet accumulated great wealth, to recruit them to support the interests of older entrepreneurs who may have done so in the absence of the tax. "Suppose you start a successful startup in your twenties" gets you hooked. You readily identify and strap yourself in for the ride. "if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset" appeals to your fears by tapping in to your understanding that once you are older, you will not have boundless energy, and unbridled understanding of the zeitgeist. You'll need protection then. The young entrepreneur, with little wealth accumulated, consults the table, reads linearly down from the top to the lower right, building understanding, until bang 95%! At this point, he or she viscerally feels the pain of losing 95% of his or her capital, which, at this point, still being meagre, is unbuttressed by the psychological accoutrements that great wealth affords its owners. The conclusion is genius. "Even a .5% wealth tax would start to keep founders away from a state or country that imposed it. That's more than a quarter of your stock." Ouch! The budding entrepreneur must now pack up and move to have any chance at a decent life. The tax must be resisted!