Most stock is held by people worth less than $50m. All of those large pension funds and institutional investors invest on behalf of the "little guy" who are worth $10k-10m. That's a massive amount of wealth. If the super rich have to sell shares to afford their taxes, then these investors will buy. For example, no single individual holds more than 0.1% of Apple stock, while 15% is held by Vanguard and Blackrock alone.

Another example is McKenzie Scott selling billions in Amazon stock. There's no shortage of buyers for that.

> Most stock is held by people worth less than $50m. All of those large pension funds and institutional investors invest on behalf of the "little guy" who are worth $10k-10m. That's a massive amount of wealth. If the super rich have to sell shares to afford their taxes, then these investors will buy. For example, no single individual holds more than 0.1% of Apple stock, while 15% is held by Vanguard and Blackrock alone.

Why would they buy?! You're saying it as if the market-wide sale of a share of every billionaire's stocks that year would just be absorbed by the market without any negative economic consequences (at best) or without a massive economic crash.

> Another example is McKenzie Scott selling billions in Amazon stock. There's no shortage of buyers for that.

That wouldn't be the case if every "McKenzie Scott" is selling billions worth of stocks simultaneously. There would certainly be a shortage of buyers.

Thank you - Jesus Christ I don't know if people around here are being deliberately obtuse or if they just have no imagination whatsoever. I think they don't understand that wealth redistribution is in fact the entire fucking point.

Where do VCs get the money to invest in follow-on rounds? Same place.

They get it from the rich people who are now expected to sell their stocks. So are those rich people going to buy their own stocks?!