If you paid attention to proponents of a wealth tax in the US, you would be aware that they only ever suggest it for vast wealths of like $10 million+.
That’s like 2 pretty good houses in the bay area. Hardly “vast wealth”, and these sorts of things are rarely inflation adjusted over time.
The Bay Area is one of the most expensive parts of the United States and $10M still means you own half a dozen houses. I’d say that’s reasonably “wealthy” from the perspective of the majority of the population who struggle to afford even one.
Sure, I’d agree with “reasonably wealthy”, just not “vast” wealth.
Anyone who owns two $500k houses is wealthy in 2026. I used to own two worth less than that and didn’t consider myself wealthy, but I was by the statistics.