A fine rebuttal would acknowledge that a charitable reading of pg's original post includes the effect of growth---you're still left with the same fraction of we

A fine rebuttal would acknowledge that a charitable reading of pg's original post includes the effect of growth---you're still left with the same fraction of wealth if not for the tax. It's not even a stretch to say that that's what pg originally meant, the phrasing in [1] is pretty careful and specific. FTA's thesis is entirely predicated on an error that arguably isn't there. It would do much better by acknowledging that yes, even under optimistic growth conditions the tax will take a big bite out of the final wealth, but that even under conservative estimates of growth the hypothetical founder will still be ahead. This is a facile "well-actually". [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20200818133017/http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html http://web.archive.org/web/20200818133017/http://paulgraham....