This would’ve been a great opportunity to share your unique expertise on the history, efficacy, or real mechanisms of tax laws that us non-lawyers aren’t privy to. E.g. comparative analysis of property taxes, which are wealth taxes but limited to one asset class.

In retort, these companies are started by young risk takers, many of whom have a safety net. A set of redistributive policies could expand that volume to folks who are arbitrarily excluded.

A property tax is different from a wealth tax for several reasons. Wealth is constantly created and destroyed. Land, not so much. Wealth can be easily moved around the world. Land can't. Wealth can be hidden to evade taxes. Land is hard to hide.

These differences mean that a tax on wealth tends to encourage wealth flight, tax evasion, etc, while a tax on property tends to encourage more productive use of the land. For example: An empty lot in the middle of a city would be taxed based on its value, which would be quite high. The owner would be incentivized to either build something that creates value or sell it to someone else who would do the same.

> a tax on wealth tends to encourage wealth flight, tax evasion, etc

A tax on income tends to encourage inequality, tax-advantaged income schemes, tax evasion, etc. Also, you didn't actually refute the parent poster's point that property tax is a subset of wealth tax.

Taxes like this appear to be quite unpopular though, right? You would expect this to help solve issues in, say, California's tech areas but I think many would agree that it hasn't happened. I'd be curious about whether a result like that is inevitable or just how it turned out this time.