If any of the super rich want to leave the US in lieu of paying a wealth tax, we may well be better off so long as we put an end to their ability to put foreign money into our elections.

and even if we somehow could muster a majority in both houses and have a president who would sign it, we'd never get a constitutional amendment ratified to allow it.

taxes essentially need to be levied on a per capita basis, except for the income tax, which only became possible after its own constitutional amendment was ratified.

"wealth" is neither income not per capita, so i don't see how it's constitutional.

in theory, though, i like the idea of a wealth tax, in fact, in lieu of an income tax entirely. encourage economic activity but discourage hoarding of assets. the only downside is that income is much easier to detect because someone else has an incentive to report. it's much easier to hide wealth.

The 16th amendment is very specific. It applies only to income tax. All other taxes must be on a per capita basis.

Her idea could also run afoul of the prohibition on a "bill of attainder," which prohibits a punishment of any limited class or group. That requires considering a tax as a punishment, but when applied selectively such an interpretation is far from outlandish.

There is also the ban on "ex post facto" laws, imposing conditions after the the action occurs. The tax was not in place when the wealth was accumulated, which makes such a tax "after the fact." The person might have conducted financial affairs differently had he known that accumulated wealth would be subject to tax.