I'm not really arguing whether it's a good or bad idea. It's just that, as far as I know, it's the norm in our society and others so it's odd if someone wants to debate it as a hypothetical that people might turn against.

Look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for an example of taking more than a sliver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae...

I'm not sure of the difference between a "wealth tax" and a "property tax". Are you saying the sort of property tax homeowners pay in a lot of places would be unconstitutional at a Federal level? Or are you saying it's unconstitutional at any level?

A property tax is a wealth tax yes, and as you say it would be unconstitutional at the federal level, but they're enacted at the state or municipal level which is legal. At least that's the obvious position and the fact that the federal income tax required an Amendment supports that.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/constitutional-conce...

The federal takeover of a government-created corporation in a financial crisis to prevent it collapsing isn't really a good comparison to an ongoing process of "taking" large chunks of successful companies because their owners are required to pay taxes. And there is criticism of that control now, even if people accepted those actions were required at the time:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/business/dealbook/fannie-...

A lot of people want to get the government out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and I'm no expert, but I think they are obviously wrong. You have a systemically important entity that has to have a government guarantee, then it has to answer to the government as at least a 51% shareholder and have restrictions on distributing profits. It seems obvious and simple and correct to me, not some sort of temporary aberration.