He says:
> Even a .5% wealth tax would start to keep founders away from a state or country that imposed it.
Mr Graham doesn't consider the possibility of startup founders leaving / kept away from a place that doesn't impose a wealth tax. I am not a successful startup founder (yet), but I would consider it my duty to live in /start a company in a place with better laws and taxes that are more equitable for everyone.
Money is not the only thing that drives startup founders to do big things. Complaining about a wealth tax and suggesting it will ruin things in the valley / CA due to people leaving completely ignores the societal improvements that could come from those tax dollars.
The idea behind increasing taxes on the wealthy is to build a better society for everyone - including the wealthy! Why would the future prospective wealthy startup founders want to live in a massively unequal society, that is bent on increasing incoming inequality (the topic of another recent PG essay, where he argues that decreasing wealth inequality is a bad idea)? I sure wouldn't.
Mr Graham, a lot of startup founders may leave if large measures to improve society like a wealth tax are not 'imposed'.
You said,
> Taxes are a necessary part of a functioning modern economy. Wealth tax is not.
But you don't back this up. Why should wealth tax not be a part of modern economy? Modern economies are broken right now, obviously, for most people anyway, so keeping the status quo is a red flag and a bad sign.
> Could Mr. Graham not be against this tax because it's an objectively bad tax with many unintended consequences?
If that is his position, he does not explain it very well. Especially with the context of many of his recent essays, he does seem especially concerned with his image and wealth.
What about the unintended consequences of adopting policies that specifically intend to increase wealth inequality? PG doesn't seem to much consider the consequences that his models/opinions/plans would have on other people if implemented.