> A hard line between labour and capital seems a bit reductive. What hard line? The hard line I didn't draw with the "what percent of your money" formulation?

> A hard line between labour and capital seems a bit reductive. What hard line? The hard line I didn't draw with the "what percent of your money" formulation? > Net worth is a bad way to think about this, because it makes people think billionaires have billions of dollars in cash ready to be taxed away. If it's not cash it can't be taxed? I brought up real estate as a counterexample to the entire stable of "it's tooo haaaaard" arguments, and that's the weakest of them. I was expecting something taller, like the liquidity argument. But real estate comfortably refutes them all and you didn't even try to deal with that. > you're talking about taking their property away from them The government wouldn't hesitate for a second to take my property when they are taxing me waaay heavier than mega billionaires. Why the fuck should I be the slightest bit sympathetic to the sanctity of their literal entitlement? Some people put property rights on an altar and treat them as a fundamental principle, but here's the thing: property rights (at their worst) have been used to institute and defend literal slavery. If you want to put them on an altar, if you want to treat them as a fundamental principle rather than a tool to economically link investment with return, I'm going to make you own that and defend it. Do you want to go down that road?