That's ridiculous, and hopefully nothing like that passes.. it seems overly draconian, and would cause a need to counter-adjust in a lot of other areas..
With 1 tril yearly deficit, the need to ID new revenue sources is pressing (in those circles), I would say.
Not looking forward to seeing that proposal, but it simply cannot exist in current conditions where you have just 3K allowance yearly for losses.
What if they taxed someone one year based on 100mil in assets (hypothetically) and next year, his assets are worth 20mil.
They would have to pay him back (paying 3K would be laughable) and I don't see how they can, making the whole affair largely academic.