> If he's great at his job I presume shareholders would want to keep him on as CEO and would compensate him handsomely in cash money. This really isn't how the

> If he's great at his job I presume shareholders would want to keep him on as CEO and would compensate him handsomely in cash money. This really isn't how the real world works. It's easy to design rules that would work acceptably if no humans were involved, but in reality this would ensure there are no sole owners of companies with control. Sooner or later, every CEO does something that "conventional wisdom" doesn't agree with, and if he doesn't have corporate control, he's out. Yes, this would "hurt" gaming and the economy, because it would change the ownership of companies for the worse. If every game company was Bethesda, mediocrity and micropayments would rule the gaming world, because every company would pursue whatever strategy is perceived to be "obvious" to make shareholders' money increase. If this tax had existed when Doom came out, Id software and the effects it had on gaming as we know it would never have existed. On a side note, the people here commenting that companies could just pay a salary to their CEOs large enough to cover the wealth tax apparently have never owned or run a company. Any company being forced to pay out liquid cash equal to 20% of its stock valuation would go under. The usual killer of small to medium companies is cash flow.. having enough money to buy what you need to keep producing and paying bills until your customers pay their bills. Also, if they're trying to tax theoretical gains, are they also going to pay out when companies' valuation decreases? In corporate performance, you get what you measure. If the tax is charged based on companies gaining value, companies won't gain value. That plus the fact that certain corporations are exempted from it (hedge funds) makes it a non starter.