>The story discussed here applies only to the extremely wealthy, and such people don't deserve any pity for having to contribute back to the society that allowed them to accumulate such wealth.
Nobody here is crying for rich people having to pay taxes on assets with a value that can actually be realized - this is a question of fairness and logical consistency. At exactly what level of wealth are you arguing that the government should be able to make logically inconsistent determinations about how much you owe them?
>If someone is in a situation where their property's valuation cannot be evaluated by the sale of similar objects on the market, then they are without exception able to afford to pay the taxes on it.
If anything this article proves that the exact opposite is possible. If I owned "Canyon" - which I can't sell - and my remaining assets are valued lower than the tax on "Canyon" based on the initial IRS assessment, then I couldn't afford to pay the taxes on it.
Nobody here is crying for rich people having to pay taxes on assets with a value that can actually be realized - this is a question of fairness and logical consistency. At exactly what level of wealth are you arguing that the government should be able to make logically inconsistent determinations about how much you owe them?
>If someone is in a situation where their property's valuation cannot be evaluated by the sale of similar objects on the market, then they are without exception able to afford to pay the taxes on it.
If anything this article proves that the exact opposite is possible. If I owned "Canyon" - which I can't sell - and my remaining assets are valued lower than the tax on "Canyon" based on the initial IRS assessment, then I couldn't afford to pay the taxes on it.