We have a system based around the notion that when a worker is given money or other value in exchange for work, part of their value increase needs to be transferred to the state. That is the same even if you get a car in compensation instead if a paycheck.

Why should the system be such that if you gain value without exchange of work, then suddenly you should not transfer anything to the state?

Yes that means that you might need to liquidate part of the asset to cover taxes on its value, just like paying a workers sallee by giving them a car might mean they need to sell it to cover taxes.

But it’s extremely odd to argue that there is some inherent “unfairness” in Musk or Buffet having to transfer part of their value increases to the state when we all agree every worker should do this.

Why do we tax property more (outside California) when it increases in value? Didn’t the owner of it rightfully make a smart claim and stake out a great piece of land? Why should they be penalized by paying more when the land becomes worth more?

In short: there’s no amount of personal “hard work” that made Bezos’ company worth what it is: the vast majority of the gains are due to his employees’ work and having staked a claim on the right plots of business ventures. Absolutely Bezos should be rewarded for making those smart decisions, but why should he take the vast majority of the gains, when he was not responsible for the vast majority of the value added?

Allowing a few individuals to amass a fortune larger than the non-US NATO budget, while we’re at the same time facing human-extinction level threats, feels a little absurd on its face. Moving the needle towards any one individual only having more power than a few thousand average people, rather than a few million, seems fine?