Yeah but if your wealth has compounded 400% over 40 years, and they took 40% compounded, then that paints a different picture. He’s playing games around the idea that 100% is the cap because that’s how most people would think about money.
At a 1% wealth tax, you will end up being 45% less wealthy in 40 years than you would be without the wealth tax.
There is a 100% cap on what the government can take from you. And, with a 1% wealth tax, they are taking 45% of it (spread over 40 years).
Put another way, the 1% wealth tax is similar to a 45% capital gains tax (where the cap is also 100%). Capital gains is just more front-loaded (paid upon liquidation) whereas wealth tax is paid over time.
This is the misunderstanding I'm pointing out. You will end up being 45% less wealthy regardless of whether your assets grow or not. If your assets grow YoY, you will still end up being 45% less wealthy bc your YoY gains are also taxed by the 1% wealth tax.