Yes, you could focus on “immobile assets”—basically things rich people can’t stuff into a suitcase and fly to Dubai with. Think land, property, natural resources, infrastructure, maybe even art collections that aren’t portable (good luck sneaking the Louvre into Monaco).

That’s more or less what property taxes already are: governments tax the immovable base (real estate), because billionaires can’t dig up their mansions and carry them off. Norway and Switzerland do this with their wealth tax systems—the easiest part to enforce is always property.

Pros:

• Hard to evade.

• Predictable revenue stream.

• Politically popular—people like the idea that “palaces pay rent.”

Cons:

• Doesn’t catch a lot of modern wealth, which is in financial assets, businesses, and IP. Elon Musk doesn’t keep his fortune in castles and pastures.

• Can crush “paper rich, cash poor” folks (farmers, small business owners, retirees in gentrified neighborhoods) unless there are carve-outs.

• You end up with distortions (people move wealth into mobile forms like stocks, trusts, shell companies).

So yes, it’s doable. But if you only tax immobile wealth, the superrich will just shuffle everything they can into highly mobile assets, which is basically like trying to tax pigeons while leaving the birdbath open.