The actual proposals at the time I wrote this was a wealth tax applying to wealth greater than $50 million.

That’s substantially different from one that starts at $0.

Isn’t PG using that as an example and actually says it’s simpler to calculate that way?

This doesn’t feel like a generous reading.

I’m not against a wealth tax and I’m not aligned with PG, but I do think it’s important to be generous in your interpretation. I think PG is just arguing wealth taxes are unfair on founders.

$2m starting point is reasonable btw, that’s a good ballpark for a founders share at pre seed.

I think it's presented in a way that makes him sound very reasonable, and make a wealth tax sound very stupid.

- A small time founder losing 2/3rds of their stock - OH NO, wealth tax is terrible!

- A businessman worth $162 of stock ends up being worth billions as their stock appreciates, despite having to pay wealth taxes. Huh, maybe wealth tax is alright.