>It's unfair that they can gain extraordinary amounts of wealth, to such a degree that it's impractical for them to even use, and yet not be taxed on any of it, unrealized or no.
If someone earns a lot of money and just sits on it, they're essentially just reducing the money supply and redistributing purchasing power to other owners of dollar-denominated assets. What is fundamentally "unfair" about this? Why obsess over income inequality if there's admittedly not much consumption inequality? Why is it more "fair" for the government to marshal this purchasing power via taxation than for other holders of cash? Is the implicit assumption here that there's a monotonic relationship between government revenue and fairness?
The article reflects the worst sort of moralized economic illiteracy.
If someone earns a lot of money and just sits on it, they're essentially just reducing the money supply and redistributing purchasing power to other owners of dollar-denominated assets. What is fundamentally "unfair" about this? Why obsess over income inequality if there's admittedly not much consumption inequality? Why is it more "fair" for the government to marshal this purchasing power via taxation than for other holders of cash? Is the implicit assumption here that there's a monotonic relationship between government revenue and fairness?
The article reflects the worst sort of moralized economic illiteracy.