No thanks. Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious. Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms.
I'd say almost the reverse. What we need most in terms of "tax reform" is to move away from thinking about taxes as solely a means of funding government operations, and towards thinking about taxes as a way of directly redistributing wealth. That is, the revenues of a wealth tax could simply be given to the non-wealthy as direct payments (possibly in the form of refundable tax credits). Unavoidably there will be some overhead, but there doesn't need to be anything for the money to be "spent on"; it can just be straight-up given to different people than those who paid it.
And if you disagree with that look at social security which is supposed to be your money but clearly it is not.
The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income. Your complaint isn't relevant to the discussion of wealth vs income taxes.
Derived is not the same thing. Not even close.
Then why stop at 1%? Why not fork over half of your possessions to the government every year and let them spend it for you, if you trust them so much?
And by the way we already have a wealth tax. Its called inflation.
Aka put your wealth at risk or watch it disappear.
And the larger point is that runaway govt spending makes it disappear faster.