Hacker News Reader

I don't think he forgot; he's being intentionally misleading.

What about dividends? Starting another company? Working as a CEO or board member?

The article has a terrible foundation because he's intentionally misleading the reader.

The board is unlikely to agree to give a CEO or board member enough stock to maintain control of the company. I don't even think this is an unintentional goal - most wealth tax proponents I've seen are explicitly trying to prevent situations like with Cargill or Walmart, where the founder and his descendants can control the company forever.

I think the word you're looking for is vague. He's being intentionally vague, not misleading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com