Matt Mahan

And the top 3% generate over 70% of the state's revenue.

So we have a very progressive tax structure.

And I think that's right.

I think the wealth tax concept is fundamentally different in that because people feel that it is

taxing something that's already been taxed and earned.

And in many cases are assets that aren't liquid.

And then you've got to figure out how to assess, you know, the value of a painting or a business or some stock that hasn't been, that hasn't, isn't publicly traded.

Yeah, I think there are a lot of them.

We should talk about all the other things we should be doing to address wealth inequality, and I think even more importantly, opportunity and upward mobility.

I think that's the biggest issue is the declining social mobility in America.

But look, there are a dozen European countries that have tried this.

The majority have rolled back their wealth taxes.

Of those, a majority found that their overall revenue declined.

You have to hire, to actually implement a wealth tax,

You have to first hire an army of assessors to go out and pick through people's lives and try to figure out what they own and what it's worth.

And that's really complicated.

All of people's belongings, going through their homes, trying to assess the market value of everything they possess is intrusive and complicated and expensive.

I think a particular risk and part of my concern with this current proposal is that you have folks who have, say, built a company, have stock, it's paper value, it fluctuates wildly.

There's a multiplier effect that is oddly written into this proposal that your voting power, if you have shares that give you 10x the voting rights as a founder of a company, that's actually how it's going to be valued.

So now you're in a position where you've created a company.