From the perspective of trying to get the budget balanced, taxing wealth is probably the single most efficient way to do it.

From the perspective of the tax code as an incentive system, taxing wealth is a strange thing—it makes people feel less interest in becoming wealthy, and thereby causes fewer GDP-building things to happen! (This is also, for a similar reason, why economists don't like corporate taxes or trade tariffs: they disincentivize exactly the things that help the economy the most.)

Economists are usually more in favor of a land-value tax, because it punishes people for something that doesn't build GDP (investing their wealth into property and then sitting on it as it appreciates), and encourages them to instead do things that do build GDP (like investing their wealth into companies.) A land-value tax is still essentially a luxury tax, but it doesn't have the same problem of unilaterally discouraging GDP creation that taxing wealth does.

>do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth

Just to clarify, nobody in the US is doing this, but it's not unheard of elsewhere. For example, Norway has a wealth tax of about 0.85% and there are some other examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples .

It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of understanding that the most important part of tax policy is compliance, that is actually collecting the taxes.

Even our current methods of evaluating quantities and distribution of wealth are vague estimates, and that's without people incentivized by taxation to hide or minimize it.

A wealth tax that turns into anything but a buildings-and-cars tax is a fantasy from an enforcement perspective, and significant property taxes have issues of their own.

We do tax wealth in a very limited way in the form of real estate property taxes. Though I would note that it hits the middle class and poor more disproportionately than the extremely wealthy. And I'd note that the tax cuts in front of congress propose making that scheme land even harder on the middle class by eliminating or curtailing the state/local tax (including property tax) exemptions from federal taxes.

It'd be better to tax things we don't want, like pollution.

I'm persuaded that wealth taxes and maximum income are the appropriate solution: after X million per year, you don't get more money, and after you and your family heap up Y million of _fluidly defined_ assets, you get taxed on what you hold/control/manage-via-tax-shelter.

Obliterate the tax shelters, obliterate the tax havens, bring the money back home under threat of criminal law.

I'm not saying you can't be a fat cat. But at a certain point (fluid and blurry, but distinctly present), it's just morbid obesity that is squishing other citizens.

I like the idea of a wealth tax.

The details will be difficult: how do you assess wealth with any semblance of accuracy, especially in the face of an increased incentive to hide it? I'd love to hear anybody's clever ideas to tax wealth in a way that catches cheaters. The biggest issue is what you do with wealth held overseas.

But even if the cost of catching cheaters is many billions of dollars of enforcement apparatus, it seems worth it. Of course, you create a new problem: avoiding corruption in a large enforcement apparatus chasing after people with the resources to easily bribe them. (But this problem is not unique to wealth taxes, and I don't think bribing the IRS is actually much of a problem—people just bribe Congress.)

There's another problem: wealth taxes would probably need a constitutional amendment in the U.S. From Article I, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."

There's already an amendment to clarify that federal income taxes are OK. But wealth taxes will need their own amendment.

Conceptually, though, I totally agree: if the problem is unequal wealth, just redistribute the wealth directly to move toward a less catastrophe-prone distribution.

> Or go a step further do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth

Heard of this before. Have there been any attempts of that before and how did it fare?

It would seem to be as soon as wealth is taxed, wealth will morph or change shape to avoid being taxed. We'd end up with some new arcane tax scheme where wealth is held in a tropical island nation and the owner of the wealth gets a stipend or I don't know, rents all their possessions from that entity.

The estate tax is a tax on wealth.

Without a doubt, a global wealth tax would significantly improve the quality of life for every human on this planet; even those with the large amounts of wealth being taxed.

> Or go a step further do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth

"Nobody?" Other countries manage it.