It’s uniqueness is more how they manage their petrol dollars through a government investment fund rather than subsidizing government services directly or giving back the money to buy popular support like you see in Alaska.

I am inclined to agree with your suggestion and agree with OP.

Mr Entrepreneur starts a business with $1,000 of his own capital and manages to grow his stake to $1,000,000. If the only way for him to use the $1,000,000 as collateral for a loan is to sell it and realize the gain, then he doesn’t need the loan anymore and a successful entrepreneur is deprived of ongoing ownership. But by allowing him to borrow on the $1,000,000 and taxing him, he is still able to maintain his share and use a portion of the loan proceeds to pay the new collateral tax. Netting less of the loan proceeds seems preferable for everyone than to force him to sell his stake.

I think the rationale is that if you have unrealized gains, there is a high likelihood that you are well off, and can therefore be pressured into reifying your economic potential into a resource that the government can appropriate (ie money)

It’s not a straightforward tax like income tax, it’s more of a class based tax that has some aspects in common with income / CG taxes.

It makes sense when you consider that the capital owning class is and was always the most well off, even more so than aristocrats, since the Industrial Revolution anyway.

I think the issue that these laws are trying to solve (and perhaps not with sufficient nuance) is that the ultra-rich get paid in stock or options, which then go up in value. Those "unrealized gains" aren't taxable (because they're only theoretical at this point), but they're still able to go to the banks and borrow against those gains anyway to fund their lifestyle tax-free.

Obviously you need to be a bit sane about it; I have "unrealized gains" by virtue of having stock options in a company, but while I'm paid well I'm definitely not rich by any stretch. I'm just some dude with stock.

It was not that it didn't apply to me. I've had shareholdings in Norwegian companies worth well over the deductible several times. The point is that it isn't a problem in practice as long as you're aware of it and plan accordingly. Yes, if you start a company in Norway without a liquid market for your shares, and without understanding the tax implications, you might end up having a bad time of it. If you spend an hour talking to an accountant beforehand, it's just a minor extra cost of doing business.

E.g. at a $10m valuation you'll end up paying <$90k wealth tax after rebates. If your company is valued enough that your shares are worth $10m, you can finance a $90k loan either directly or via your company, and bake it into your funding rounds. Yes, it's an extra drag on your business, but from first-hand experience, preparing for this just isn't a big deal in most instances.

You don't have to like it, and people are free to whine about it, but in reality it's a problem only if you don't know what you're doing.