I'd wholeheartedly support wealth taxes if I trusted the social safety net and health care system in my country. Until then, I'll hoard money out of fear: I don't have anything I'm intending to spend it on and hopefully never will. Fix health care and there'd be a high probability of the chains coming off off, at least for me.

The trick to taxes is in getting them right.

Taxes are, to a rough analog, like the vacuum hose system within an automobile engine. (Hrm: I'm thinking that this may be a bad analogy if there aren't many auto gearheads here.)

An internal combustion engine is essentially a self-powered air pump. It has a low-pressure end (intake) and high-pressure end (exhaust). It's got various bits and pieces which need powering. Chains, shafts, and vacuum hoses bleed off some of the energy output of the engine to run systems which can't otherwise be powered. Without the vacuum system, the engine as a whole runs worse.

A vacuum leak, though, worsens performance as you're bleeding off energy and not feeding it back in where it's needed.

In the same sense, taxes modify the function of markets by rasing or lowering costs, and transferring purchasing capability elsewhere. If properly structured, they improve the function of the economy as a whole. If not, they worsen it.

The engine (wealthy) generally perceive the direct costs, but not the indirect benefits of the tax system.

This just begs the question though, what is the right way to tax?

Assuming that you are redistributing wealth (as you describe above), taxing wealth instead of income has a profound effect. It creates an incentive for every individual to increase the total wealth in the system, no matter who creates it, or where it's created. When you tax income, it makes no difference to you whether the income was created wealth, or merely captured.

Whatever you tax becomes more expensive.

Whatever is more expensive, you have less of.

Your question can be restated: what's your overall economic goal?

You tax to achieve that.

I'd tax rent-seeking, and the most effective way to do that is a land value tax.

I'm seeing merits to land tax, inheritence, financial transfers, and either a corporate or corporate transfers tax.

Allowances for that which is reasonable. Disallowances for that which is not.

The economy views taxation as an outage and routes around it. IOW, prices adjust.

The thing that should be taxed is rents, Ricardian rents as written about at length by Adam Smith.

Yeah, I chalk this up to broken feedback loops. A separate but related problem, is that in most places it works roughly like G = TI, with a fixed T (tax rate), so that G (government budget) is a function of I (income). The tax just works like a resistance to accumulating wealth, no matter how much the government actually needs in order to function. It would probably help if we capped G instead, i.e. T = G/I.