If it wasn’t combined in the same bill, the people will just have two taxes going forward. Effectively every “temporary” tax becomes a permanent tax. During the last local election, our city council was asking people to vote to replace an expiring tax with one at a lower rate and trying to sell it as voting for this reduces your tax.

While I grant you that they are two different things, two-thirds of the average sale price in my area is from gains in value accrued over the time the home was occupied prior to sale, almost all of which is currently untaxed.

That is true, but on the other hand if you had to pay a hefty yearly property or wealth tax you might not be able to afford it in the sense that your wealth is bound up in the house.

The counter is of course that when you buy a house you should make sure you have enough income and/or liquid wealth so that you can pay the taxes. And if not, move to a smaller house. Of course, opponents of such taxation will then roll out all kinds of grannies living in mansions on meager pensions. Then again, is it fair that this prices out younger people from the property market?

As difficult as they are, I do think we'll need some form of wealth taxation in order to put a brake on spiraling inequality. Yes, call me a fan of Piketty if you want.