It's not double taxation, it's exponential taxation. For N years of wealth, you lose (1-k)^N. Double taxation is just a higher rate of taxes, but this accumulat

It's not double taxation, it's exponential taxation. For N years of wealth, you lose (1-k)^N. Double taxation is just a higher rate of taxes, but this accumulates. There's some element of being unable to just check out, maybe. If you Rip Van Winkled, being totally out of the system for a while (say you moved abroad), then when you returned, you would owe nothing under money-in-motion taxes in most places, but you'd owe an exponentially large share of your money under a wealth tax. I honestly can't articulate why I think that's bad, but can't shake the opinion that it is. That said, I'm certainly fine with a wealth tax for people at the level of "OMG holy shit you have so much money," which Warren is proposing (and Sanders, sorta). I'm fine because the harm of having your stuff taken isn't real harm since it's designed to never take enough that you aren't still super rich. The harm of losing your gold toilet isn't harm in the same sense as a poor person losing their home, though it's the same act. It's difficult to articulate concisely.