[abvdasker]

There were multiple prominent politicians with serious wealth tax proposals running in the 2020 Democratic Party primary. If you want implementation details I would suggest that you read their proposals.

As for an "argument" it's really no different than any other political position in that it boils down mainly to what you personally value.

I've observed at least two distinct value systems which can both lead to supporting a wealth tax.

1) Maybe you believe in helping the marginalized and creating a more equitable society. Perhaps you believe it is insane and obscene that multi-millionaires and billionaires walk past tent cities of homeless people every day in the streets of San Francisco. Maybe you care about the well-being of other people and recognize that what is good for them is usually good for yourself.

2) Or maybe you believe that tax policy should optimize efficiency as a facilitator of economic growth. You recognize that the diminishing marginal utility of wealth and the runaway inequality in America presents a problem of inadequate aggregate demand and threatens the entire economy. Maybe you've done the math and realize that the US government must raise revenues to have any hope of staving off an eventual sovereign debt crisis.

From what I've seen, the people opposed to a wealth tax usually believe something else.

[ericd]

I'm firmly in the camp that believes that the situation in SF is obscene.

But if CA wants to work on fixing its social ills, they could start by implementing the basics, like a functioning property tax system, and reducing the tremendous amount of spending on things like pension abuse, before moving on to more exotic and invasive solutions like wealth taxes.

So many of their issues stem from the ridiculous housing and other property development situation. It's not the fault of the ultrawealthy so much as the moderately wealthy NIMBY homeowner. But it's less popular to blame them, because for many of us, they are ourselves.