Why exactly do we multiply made up numbers and then get our knickers in a twist? $Current_Stock_price * #Number_of_Shares != Actual Wealth by owner of those sh

Why exactly do we multiply made up numbers and then get our knickers in a twist? $Current_Stock_price * #Number_of_Shares != Actual Wealth by owner of those shares. Like take "Ol'Muskie", if we are to believe the linked article above that "His fortune rose by $6 billion during December 2023", then are we to also believe he actually lost 200 BILLION BENJAMINS at the end of 2022? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-30/elon-musk-becomes-first-person-ever-to-lose-200-billion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-30/elon-musk... He neither lost the money then, neither gained it now. It was just paper gains and paper losses. These are not Saudi princes or whatever, the "wealth" they have is meaningless. They are wealthy, absurdly so, but the exact number (and ranking on some list) are not worth bothering about. ____ I fully understand the need to tax rich individuals, but that requires adjustment to the tax code... an adjustment that would most likely be most fiercely fought against; not only by these dunderheads, but by the far less visible but the far more populous (and powerful) group of low-billionaires and multi-millionaires. I have long maintained[1] that the next-tier rich people have a far more secretive and negative effect per dollar; the ~10 or so tippy-top rich are just far too visible to escape the scrutiny in ways the next group does. Just my personal observation, I could be wrong. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38262314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38262314 ____ Like most people, the "loan against shares" in lieu of salary really grates at me. I think there needs to be some sort of "deemed salary" type thing, but it needs to have a carve out for people who truly are taking a loan against their assets as collateral. No idea what qualification for a "true loan" would be most fair, but here is an idea... There is an growing consensus that if you are a billionaire (or whatever wealth level is considered appropriate), then any shares you take a loan against, should be considered "sold" for tax purposes, and any gains should be realised and taxed... but if they start "repaying" the "loan", then they can deduct that amount from their future taxes. I think this might help offset some of the tax burden from the salaried class (also make things feel more fair), but I would love to hear if there are some flaws in this plan. ___ but we need to stop faffing over these "paper wealth" lists, that only re-direct our energies from where they need to be, and give us false targets to focus on.