Mark to market isn't a panacea, even if you ignore the considerable costs it creates. In some cases people are already required to mark some assets to market,

Mark to market isn't a panacea, even if you ignore the considerable costs it creates. In some cases people are already required to mark some assets to market, doing so ends up causing to have large losses which wipes out their income entirely in some years. ... again resulting in some years with no tax in spite of being wealthy -- it's ultimately offset with higher taxes later, but in some individual years you end up with the same issue the article is complaining about but actually created by the MTM. If that surprises you, realize that when you've marked an asset to market at a higher price-- you've also increased its cost basis to that higher price, so if it returns to the price you bought it at you now have a loss. Without the MTM at that point you'd simply have no gain, but not a loss. (and if you don't allow writing of the loss you've created an utterly ruinous cost for owning any risky-- or even merely volatile asset)