>>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.

Indeed. The parent is arguing that the wealth tax is better than, say, a carbon tax, which is considered a fairly efficient form of taxation.

> >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 see one. Could Mr. Graham not be against this tax because it's an objectively bad tax with many unintended consequences?

To add to this, Paul Graham doesn’t live in California, and would not pay the tax. He’s opposed on principle.