I don’t think I necessarily disagree with what you said, but that seems a bit like a goal post shift. That’s not actually an argument in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. If I may put forth arguments against: 

1) The new proposal is framed as a tax on the ultrarich. The same was true of the new income tax in 1913. If given the power to tax unrealized gains, expect the feds to expand the tax to ordinary people. If not directly, then indirectly as inflation makes us all billionaires on a long enough time horizon and the income limits are not inflation adjusted.

2) taxing unrealized capital gains becomes infeasible when trying to assess the value of more illiquid assets, like paintings and other collectibles.

3) if there is a tax on unrealized gains, will there be a tax write off for unrealized losses? 

4) paying taxes for unrealized capital gains requires either a) the immediate selling of liquid assets to pay the tax, or b) using already available cash reserves to pay the tax. This has the net effect of reducing available capital, reducing productivity, and making everyone worse off.

5) see point #2. The complication of taxing unrealized capital gains will make billionaires hire tax lawyers to fight the IRS to define what counts and doesn’t count as an unrealized gain. This is a net drag on the system, adds friction, and increases the operating cost of both the irs and the private individual / entity.

6) we already know increasing taxes in general creates the rich to flee to offshore accounts. I would expect the assets to magically be moved or brokered to jurisdictions outside of the reach of the unrealized gains tax laws. This has the net effect of draining society of assets. 

 It's an interesting mix for sure, and I really don't think you're way out in left field with most of the points you've made. If anything I do appreciate the rational and metered response- those do tend to be rare on the Internet generally. 

However I also think there are other factors at play as well. People make a lot of those points you've made about unions, by and large trying to illustrate the hardships unions create. Not enough people tend to talk about how unions have improved their lives, though. That's not to say all unions are perfect bastions of employee representation.  However even people who aren't in unions have experienced higher wages or more vacation time because they work in fields where union presence is heavy and they have to compete in offerings to attract workers. 

I think there are other methods of keeping billionaires stateside even in the worst of possible scenarios, such as something as extreme as an across the board flat tax. 

Though I know those with influence and resources would always beg to differ, and they will continually do so via proxies on the Internet. 

 Agree 100% with the theory, 0% with the method chosen 

 It’s a method to crash the economy. 

If you look at it like that, you’ll see the insidiousness of the commie plan. 

 I doubt it will crash the economy, only parts, big Democratic donors will be allowed to use one set of assumptions, and mere millionaires in disfavoured industries another.

Like the present system, but more so. 

With appropriately biased investigation and enforcement, you could induce forced sales of particular industries whenever BlackRock was feeling cashed-up. 

 Disagree. The global economy is a house of cards on the best of days as it stands.

Introduce a new variable of the asset rich needing to unload illiquid holdings en masse the same time every year and you’ve got a recipe for total fukn carnage. Massive capital flight on announcement and massive unrest on enforcement. 

Throwing a randomiser on and giving preferential treatment to some at the expense of others would just be bonkers, like 100X volatility on already 100X volatility.

Billionaires might as well just form private armies and go hunt the political class - it would be way cheaper. Then they’ll turn those forces on their business rivals..

It would be a government-induced version of an Ancapistan nightmare 

 I like your version, but I think the ability to pick up the phone and hire a Senator's nephew would defuse much of it.

It would certainly be destabilising, funnel wealth into ever-smaller circles of financial giants, and wildly prone to partisan abuse.

I doubt the Dems are remotely serious. This is a gambit they'll drop to get something else they want, surely...? 

 The Dems aren’t serious, but they’ve pushed their base so far left that their rhetoric has to reach into these psychotic places and that leads the usual apologists and talking heads to show their true colours.

But if it did somehow come to pass, I’m confident my chaos theory would be much closer to reality than whatever the supporters envision would happen. The market distortions would be unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

I make a point about the game theory of #Bitcoin going parabolic - the early HODLers sitting on thousands of coins are disproportionately black flag anarchist types, we’ve never seen those type of people amongst the upper echelons of the financial elite. If they truly believe Bitcoin could free us from Statism, what might they do with that wealth? 

Are the key holders protecting the Blackrock ETF safe in that world where there’s a multi-Trillion dollar bounty on their heads, 1 block away from permanently and irrevocably being under someone else’s control?

A scenario of taxing Billionaires like this who already have those levels of wealth might be more manageable for the parasites, but by how much? Only takes 1 or 2 well funded rogues who calculate they’ve got more to gain flipping the table than playing by the new rules.. 

 It's wild to me that you're on a Bitcoin-centric platform and you still can't conceive of how incompatible the global economy is with the notion of scarcity either real or perceived. 

There are no markets that could withstand scarcity, it's been so long since the dollar has been divorced from reality. That said, all that do is have to believe that the economy is thriving and it will thrive. 

 U wot m8? 

 It's all fake. Derivatives, stocks, bonds, futures, all these financial tools based on absolutely nothing and backed by a lick and a promise. Bitcoin can't replace all that, it's not even compatible with it. 

 What are you even on about? Do you regularly have conversations with yourself? 

 You’re not serious if you’re not telling people to demand a third party system. 

Clown 🤡  

 The current economy is the EXACT SAME HOUSE OF CARDS as Christianity. 

Last I checked it's still pretty popular. 

 That's fair, unfortunately we don't get to choose, it's already plated and ready to either fly or die. 

 I agree with the goal, but I think a better approach would be to tax them on investments used to get loans. They DID realize the new value of that investment by convincing a bank it was sufficient to secure a loan. So make them pay the full taxes on it as if they'd sold it at the time the loan was approved, and only make them pay taxes on the difference from there if they actually sell it. Get a loan based on $500m investments, pay taxes on any profits accrued by those investments at the $500m value, and if they sell later at $600m, only pay on the new $100m, or if they sell at $400m, a tax deferment as appropriate for a $100m loss.