I don't care all that much about the taxes of people who have tens of millions, and I'm all for finding ways to fund better safety nets. I do care that such ta

I don't care all that much about the taxes of people who have tens of millions, and I'm all for finding ways to fund better safety nets. I do care that such taxes have a tendency to spread to lower tax brackets, once they're perceived as acceptable at all. I don't want to see wealth taxes being assessed on people in the "finally paid off the house" bracket, or the "successfully saved for retirement" bracket. And as long as those brackets are above the median wealth, there's a serious danger of that happening. It's much easier to argue against wealth taxes before they exist at all, and much harder to continuously keep them from affecting more people. (Example: if wealth taxes become acceptable, I would not be at all surprised if people in areas where houses still cost 5 figures support wealth taxes at a level that affects people just like them who happen to live in areas where houses cost more. Arbitrary wealth taxes are not a power I trust politicians with, no matter how much they promise not to abuse them now.) I also care that such taxes require much more invasive information-gathering (of much fuzzier information) to assess. (The value of property that isn't directly denominated in currency and isn't in the process of being bought or sold for currency is quite fuzzy.) Other parts of this thread already cover various aspects of that issue, though. > Sometimes you pay tax on value you earn, sometimes on value you give away, and sometimes on value you have. Taxes on "value you have" are quite rare; taxes on homes/land are just about the only common example, and those are already controversial for a variety of reasons.