...that all sectors of the economy, from mammoth corporations, to main street businesses, to sole proprietors, to wage earners, would be pitching in; and the design and implementation of the relevant policies would have to do that so far as possible.
The last item, the wealth tax, would have some issues with determining basis. If you hold 10 million shares of Amazon,, it's easy--look at the stock price on the tax lien date. But for real estate, which is already subject to a wealth tax (i.e., real property taxation), you'd have the same issue you get in ordinary real estate assessment at the local levels: the assessor says your shopping mall is worth $40 million, the taxpayer submits an appraisal saying $30 million, and the intervening taxing districts submit an appraisal saying it's worth $50 million. It takes one, two, or more years for the state tax tribunal to hear the case and issue a decision.
For holders of large real estate portfolios, you could be looking at hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of notional values, with taxpayers likely filing lawsuits to question the way the IRS adopts values for wealth tax purposes. The IRS might say, "You annually have your portfolio valued at net realizable value, and that's your taxable basis." But taxpayers could point out that the IRS allows various depreciation approaches when the income from those real assets is taxed, so how about adjusting the net realizable value for depreciation (or other arguments--I'm not an accountant but can imagine there are other ways to cut down the taxable basis of real estate for a wealth tax program).
Then--what about your wealth that is composed of tangible personal property; and intangibles like goodwill? Is the federal government to effectively institute a personal property tax even in jurisdictions like Illinois that constitutionally eliminated it years ago? That would stir some further controversy.