[Ennis]

Isn't that addressed with the proposed exit tax that is part of the measure?

Numerically, "losing" 2 or 3 percent is not insurmountable to most people it affects. We lose as much through core inflation and significantly more so if you include asset price inflation. The idea does feel invasive though but that may as well be conditioning.

In western nations, we accept income taxes as justified to have an egalitarian society, but this wasn't always the case. There are countries without income taxes and the concept is not perceived as justified at all. Governments have to make the case and condition people to support the measure when it is introduced until it is normalized and no one questions it.

A good question is whether production shifts to nations without wealth taxes. I haven't seen this addressed in research. There is evidence that suggests production shifting away from high corporate tax environments but this is also countered by evidence that significant intangible value is created in high tax environments and this keeps that productive capacity from leaving to cheaper environments.

[db48x]

3% is a lot when compounded yearly. The article says that Marc Zuckerberg has 85 billion in assets. If we assume that's all in cash (it isn't), that he retires this year (seems unlikely, but whatever), that this measure passes and isn't repealed (etc), and that he lives to be 80, then over the next 44 years he'd pay 62.75 billion dollars in taxes. On top of inflation. Why would anyone let that happen, when they could prevent it by moving just a few miles in any direction? I'm sure there are a lot of places that are nicer to retire to than Palo Alto.

But you are right; income taxes were once seen as a really radical and unlikely idea. I don't think that means that we should resign ourselves to eventually be facing both income and wealth taxes.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "Isn't that addressed with the proposed exit tax that is part of the measure?"

Nope, they can move out before the law takes effect and retroactive ("ex post facto") laws are not legally valid.