We’ll admit to being more than a little puzzled by one of the claims being made here. That young people are being hard done by and require subsidy. Well, perhaps, perhaps not, that’s arguable. It’s this little bit:

Then millennials came along. Born between 1981 and 2000, with the oldest now pushing 40,

We cannot think of any useful manner of classification that has 40 year olds as young people. There are grandparents out there still below that age. Without some near terminal level of infantilisation we really do have to consider people entering their fifth decade as being adults.

This part though doesn’t puzzle us it’s just the standard evidence of not thinking:

Wealth taxes make sense.

The argument being used is that young people need subsidy, wealth taxes would largely be paid by older people therefore they make sense. But that’s bad logic. Whether or not we wish to tax a particular activity or state of being depends upon whether we wish to tax that activity or state of being. Whether we wish to subsidise some group is equally dependent upon whether we wish to subsidise that group. The two decisions are entirely independent of each other.

To claim that wealth taxes are a good idea because the young - or more accurately the middle aged - require a subsidy is a complete non sequitur.