I don't find the article very convincing, so let me try to give a different argument. Governments need money to perform the duties they've been assigned. The

I don't find the article very convincing, so let me try to give a different argument. Governments need money to perform the duties they've been assigned. The costs of the duties assigned to them tend to go up during times of economic crisis (especially social safety net measures, but even public safety and education costs go up), while revenues tend to go down. Different taxation regimes exaberate or smooth this descrepancy in different circumstances. Right now states with largely property tax based revenue streams are probably doing comparatively well, where a state like Nevada, which is dependent on sales tax and entertainment tax revenue is really hurting. Diversifying the tax base to include a wealth tax has the same benefit that diversification does elsewhere - it increases resialancy of the tax system to any one type of shock, which allows governments to continue providing services when they are needed most. Now there is also a moral element to the progressive (paid more by the rich as a portion of assets) nature of a wealth tax versus the regressive nature of sales taxes (paid more by the poor as a percentage of income), and that is also worth considering, as are the practical and moral considerations that a wealth tax would likely have negative economic effects. However, right now in a period of crisis I find the main moral question to be “how can society live up to its existing obligations (explicit and implied)” and how can we ensure we do so in the future. A diversification of the tax structure (via a wealth or capital gains tax) can help with that, and therefore there is a decent moral case for pursuing such, outside of distribution questions.