If it only affects individuals, it's trivial to circumvent. Have a holding company under your control "owned" by a bunch of people (who are well paid for that r

If it only affects individuals, it's trivial to circumvent. Have a holding company under your control "owned" by a bunch of people (who are well paid for that role, but have no control. You could even do it the middle eastern way and use extended family for that). Besides, I'm personally much more worried about Blackrock than I am about Bezos, or any billionnaire. But "doing something" while doing nothing. That, I imagine, is the intention. any tax rule can be circumvented, because the US allows international share ownership ... which they in fact do: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/11/facebook-billionaire-gives-up-citizenship-to-escape-bad-american-tax-policy/?sh=53e1b6641995 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/11/faceb... So this needs compromise, talking. The main talking point of these founders seem to be that they want to maintain control of these companies, and choose their successor. Do we care about that with this legislation? Why not give them that?