I'm not a fan of this proposal but I think this line of argument is pretty flimsy and pretty specious.
In the Bay Area you're already subject to a form of wealth tax called property tax. And it's substantial. If you live in San Francisco you'll get charged 1.1801% every year [1] on the value of your wealth (property). If I bought a house in SF and live for another 60 years I would be taxed 60 times on that same asset. Does that mean the government will over the course of my life take 33.6% of my house?
It's not as if property tax has kept a damper on Bay Area house price inflation.
In the Bay Area you're already subject to a form of wealth tax called property tax. And it's substantial. If you live in San Francisco you'll get charged 1.1801% every year [1] on the value of your wealth (property). If I bought a house in SF and live for another 60 years I would be taxed 60 times on that same asset. Does that mean the government will over the course of my life take 33.6% of my house?
It's not as if property tax has kept a damper on Bay Area house price inflation.
[1] https://sftreasurer.org/property/understanding-property-tax