the basic argument reads to me as "taxing wealth at 100% would be bad policy (for various reasons), therefore taxing wealth (at all) is fundamentally bad policy".
taxing income at 100% would also be bad policy - that fact alone doesn't mean that taxing income (at all) is fundamentally bad policy.
I don't find that the post really engages with any more realistic scenario.
taxing income at 100% would also be bad policy - that fact alone doesn't mean that taxing income (at all) is fundamentally bad policy.
I don't find that the post really engages with any more realistic scenario.