capitalism itself is covetousness and greed.

not good believer in christ would ever participate, when jesus made it clear you are supposed to freely give away everything you own to the poorest among us

It's covetous to expect someone else to give you a part of something they worked for and you contributed nothing to. One of the basic 10 commandments is not to covet your neighbour's property; envy is a sin.

wealth taxes are from the old roman republic. the wealthy showed off their worth to each other by how much they could pay in taxes.

its not particularly crazy and is far older than communism or socialism which have the much more straightforward setup of seizing the means of production rather than taxing it.

however, it didnt stop the ultrawealthy from seizing power for themselves

so what if they do leave?

they're bad for the world around them, and you can add an exit tax if you want to

everyone working is the poor.

the rich are an astounding amount of wealthy such that they dont show up and still make a good poor wage in the first couple hours/days of a year by their assets increasing in value

you are poor, even if you are doing plenty well for yourself

this is the idea - if theres a lot of value around you, you should build to make sure you are meeting the bar of whats around you in terms of economic activity.

if you build even more and get more out of the land than whats around you, you essentially get a lower tax rate until your neighbors catch up.

if you lag behind, you pay a premium in taxes to not develop

do they believe its a universal solution? or one tax among many that triggers a certain asset, land, to be used more efficiently?

that is to say theyre being kneecapped.

it does have monopoly power and anticompetitive power all over the place though.

google bans are quite intrusive, but google could pretty easily with their graph knowledge apply secondary or tertiary sanctions, at which point you would not be able to do much of anything, same as if the US government sanctioned you

the people getting hurt is anyone who would have bought something but was outbit by larry page's free money glitch.

he doesnt necessarily have to pay it back either. he could just take out another loan against his same now higher valued assets to pay off the old loan

Higher valued assets? Can we just assume that assets will go up in value?

whats its mean to be kneecapped?

like, if a company's market cap gets too big, the law should stop applying to them? they should be allowed to start their own militaries and enforce martial law a la east india company?

how does a founder keep a single digit of their company after theyve been dead for a thousand years?

These arent nearly as absolute as you are making them to be.

a founder can keep their percent by paying their taxes with other money they have, or by decreasing the worth of their company. theyre a founder, they have control. Maybe founders wont be so keen to enshittify their products if theres a downside to continued growth forever. considering google dropped "dont be evil" in exchange for making larry page's 1% grow for the sake of growing, how's society at large benefiting from continuing to subsidize it?

There's also the fact that alphabet should have been broken up into about a dozen companies over a decade ago

Larry would still be rich as heck, but probably... less rich..