Isn't it telling that the same people who say we can't afford to help the poor are the ones sitting on fortunes that could change millions of lives? Look, I get the concern about government overreach—nobody wants the state to have too much power. But right now, we have a system where the richest 1% hoard more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's not healthy for anyone, not even them. A modest wealth tax—say 2% on assets over $50 million—wouldn't crush innovation or drive billionaires away. It would fund schools, healthcare, and infrastructure that actually create opportunity. MinimalistM might argue this punishes success, but I'd say it's more like asking the biggest winners to pay their fair share for the society that made their success possible.

I completely agree that a wealth tax has failed in some European countries, but those failures teach us how to do it right, not that it's impossible. France's wealth tax drove money away partly because it hit productive assets too hard. A smarter version—like a progressive tax only on extreme wealth above $50 million—would exempt most businesses and family farms. You're right that wealth is tied up in stocks and property, but the ultra-wealthy already borrow against those assets to avoid taxes. A modest annual tax just asks them to contribute a tiny fraction instead of hoarding it all. Closing income tax loopholes is great, but it won't touch the unrealized gains that make up most of their wealth. We need both approaches.

Here's a fact that stopped me in my tracks: the US federal government already collects more revenue from estate taxes on a tiny fraction of wealthy estates than most European countries ever got from their wealth taxes. That tells me the issue isn't that taxing wealth is impossible—it's that we designed those European taxes poorly. You say the wealthy just move or hide assets, but that's an argument for better enforcement, not for giving up. We already track assets through financial accounts and property records. A properly designed wealth tax with strong reporting requirements and exit taxes would work. And I hear you on the 2% compounding over ten years point. That's a fair concern. But remember, the ultra-wealthy's assets grow faster than that on average. We're talking about taking a small slice of growth, not eating into their principal. Let's not pretend closing loopholes is enough. Those fixes won't touch the staggering wealth held in unrealized gains that never get taxed at all. We need both.