The point is that he arrived at this conclusion by building up a strawman.

That 26% is over 60 years, ignores the fact that the stock will appreciate over time, ignores the fact that all wealth taxes have high floors, etc.

The amount of the wealth tax also appreciates over time.

I read it as deterring start up founders from investing in a region. If they plan for success, then they should plan to exceed the floor.

100M being the most commonly discussed floor. That usually means about 400-500M value of the company

Not ever founder thinks it’s either unicorn or broke . Most normal founders want build something good and make a good amount of money.

And where else I am going to go? There are few places where it is possible to make 100M from scratch and without being corrupt .

All things being equal, people prefer to do business in jurisdictions with lower taxation. I don't see that as a strawman argument.

True , if all things are equal , Bay Area is so far ahead of rest of the world this won’t be the decision point for most founders .