Uh huh.
>Second, taxes don't disappear into nothingness - they pay for civilization.
But there are bad taxes. There is such a thing as too much tax. So you have to justify the wealth tax on its own merits instead of trying to pull a motte-and-bailey fallacy by pushing a wealth tax and then arguing for the necessity of taxes when challenged. Taxes are a necessary part of a functioning modern economy. Wealth tax is not.
>Yes, over the long term they'll lose some wealth, but not necessarily control of their company, unless that's the decision they make.
No. What are you talking about? The math is very simple. You will lose control at some point, because there's only so many ways you can rearrange the deck chairs.
And no, dividends are not an option because issuing a dividend may not be in the best interest of the company. Dividends are also taxed separately.
That you think taking out debt to cover wealth taxes is a solution is insanity.
>Fifth, the idea that people "will just move to another country" is very silly
But that's exactly what happens. We have data on this from various experiments. It doesn't bring the revenue you expect it to because there is capital flight and brain drain from the country in response - and when that is taken into account, you may end up with a net loss in tax revenue. It's also expensive to administer and enforce because net-worth is not easy to calculate. It's no coincidence that this form taxation has been falling out of favor.
>I suspect that Mr. Graham is wringing his hands over potentially having to cut a large (in absolute terms, but small in relative ones) cheque to the government in the future,
No. That is a strawman if I ever seen one. Could Mr. Graham not be against this tax because it's an objectively bad tax with many unintended consequences?