I disagree, I would actually much prefer taxation on wealth and not distribution of income. A healthy economy is one that there's a lot of money flowing from h

I disagree, I would actually much prefer taxation on wealth and not distribution of income. A healthy economy is one that there's a lot of money flowing from hand to hand. It's effectively how _value gets created_. The more people are spending, and the more money is being distributed, the better and more healthy the economy becomes. An unhealthy economy is one that there's wealth being gathered and concentrated. One where spending, and receiving money is penalized. You can imagine taxes a form of penalization on money. Furthermore, one of the most important use cases of the government under capitalism is protection of property. If you believe that's one of the most important jobs they're doing, then people with the most property (e.g. wealth), should be paying for that protection. So, no I fundamentally disagree with you, and it seems like Matt does too if you read that piece. Wealth should be the form of taxation. This also means unrealized gains in stocks. It also means housing. If we actually taxed wealth at the federal level, and got rid of income taxes, a lot of economic problems we're facing in the US would simply go away. Housing would literally not be able to get as expensive as it is right now because there would be an ongoing cost to maintain that price, driving the incentives to actively build more housing to reduce property values. If you also did this, you'd really help in leveling the playing field. Having a rich family would still put you ahead of others, but not by the egregious levels it does today.