yup, also what would happen is the government would get bigger and bigger on these newfound taxation revenues. That's not great, but in the most idealistic situation, it's not necessarily bad. However, what is bad, is when the economy sags, the taxation revenues to sustain this bigger government will fall short, the government will go into debt, and do one of two things: It will either print money or borrow.
Borrowing (with interest) implicitly assumes the growth of a revenue stream. With private entities, the lender is on the hook if it goes bankrupt and can't fulfill its obligation. With public entities, the citizen is on the hook, so the only solution is to increase taxation down the pike, unless you have a miraculous recovery that restores the economy to what it was before (plus interest). If you don't think the wealthy will find a way to avoid this taxation down the pike that the middle class and poor will have a harder time leveraging, you are naive.
Printing money is worse. Because it devalues the currency, makes everything more expensive, and that $100,000 limit that you set as the point where the wealth tax kicks in becomes a lot more painful. Pretty soon, the poor are paying this tax that only the rich were supposed to pay. Over net time, the people that you are hurting the most are the poor, because the rich have long ago figured out how to avoid this tax.
Congratulations. Through your programme of good intentions to fix the divide between the rich and poor you have made the situation far worse than it ever was.