> it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of a flo

> it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of a floor? If we only tax wealth above $10m or $100m, it will literally never result in "all of your wealth" disappearing. > We gladly support this idea, because it affects "the billionaires" but not when it comes to everyone else and for good reason. > Ironically this is one of the main contributor to sky high real estate prices and housing crisis Right. We support it, but we don't do anything about it, even though it causes one of the most obvious policy problems in the state. > if we do, most people would lose all their wealth in a matter of couple of years. Like literally every other state? I'm sorry, no. This comment is internally logically inconsistent, ignores obvious examples to the contrary, and asserts itself as its own proof.