The mistakes pro/con proponents of "wealth taxes" make is:

Proponents of wealth taxes argue that by institutionalizing theft to a broader degree, everyone will live in a utopia, the man at the margin will prosper. In essence: "The farmer keeps a hoard of seeds in his silo! The seeds collect dust year round until he decides to plant. There is great want and famine in the world! If we go and take the seeds, we can end hunger, the laborer can eat better!" Which is to ignore that once you consume capital, it's gone -- in our example, no more food gets produced because all the seeds were eaten. This is precisely why political systems that institutionalize theft appear to be prospering temporarily, their consumption is being subsidized by capital consumption before their unavoidable demise. Often people get confused or abuse the methods of how economies account for these factors (capital, allocation, prices) but the brass-tacks reality is unavoidable.

"Ah ha!" says the taxation wonk, "We will be smart about how much we take. We will only take just enough so that the farmer will have just enough seeds to keep farming. We will call it 'normal profits' or 'reasonable profits'" And what happens when the farmer has a few bad harvests (or say a global pandemic disrupts the taxation-wonk's plan)? The farmer (and country) stop producing food because 'normal profits' or 'reasonable prices' don't exist in the real world. Mandating charity (welfare taxation), savings rates (interest rate manipulation), or service allocation (defense spending, roads etc) always blow up.

The opponents of wealth taxes argue that 100% of their purchasing power is due to their own work/negotiation which ignores that much of asset-price inflation is due to government-monies being perpetually diluted to appease in-groups. You choosing to pay to go to a Beyonce concert and increasing her 1/2 billion net worth isn't the action causing the musician down the street to starve (it's the fact that no one is willing to trade his music services for what he wants). Some amount of Jeff Bezos's wealth is warrantied. If someone wants to trade a money for a certificate of stock, no one has been robbed. But if individuals are forced into buying certificate of stock to escape the dilution of purchasing power by money dilution, that is an undue benefit to Bezos's portfolio. It's also an undue benefit to allow the money issuers to control who gets access to lending/credit -- rather than the worker who decides to lend out their past labor in money form (creditor) and debt holder.

The reason why people are starving isn't because the farmer refrains from consuming or planting seeds -- it's because the price of labor rendered in the past is stolen from workers by the money they've been paid being diluted by money printing.[1] By taking from the farmer who consumes the least seeds and produces the most food (the most profitable) to give to the farmer who consumes the most seeds and produces the least food (less profitable) is a method of subsidizing consumption.

This isn't to say that economic collaboration/unions/co-ops cannot be profitable nor that they will be profitable. If the union renders certain offerings and charges listed prices, individuals can choose to join that union (say "sign up for a box of farm produce for X price) if it's profitable for them to do so -- Which is an economic calculation only an individual can make not a central planner decided if a group should join such a union, as profits are local.

But to bastardize collaboration/co-operation and insist that everyone will be better off if they are force through compulsion (often through violence, sometimes social isolation) to pay into the union and take out of the union and force the union the accept members which are unprofitable for it to serve, is to ensure that those who take the most and contribute the least to the union will eventually subsume the membership from those who take the least and contribute the most.

Read more about the Cantillon effect here:
[1] https://www.austriancenter.com/cantillon-effect-populism/