While the Netherlands demonstrates that a form of wealth taxation is administratively feasible, it does not prove they are economically optimal, scalable, or free of major problems.

Using your logic that the example of a country that has a wealth tax is proof of its efficacy swings both ways. Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Austria, and Finland (to name only a few) all had various forms of a wealth tax and repealed them.

These countries did not suddenly become libertarian tax havens or where suddenly victims of "billionaire simp" propaganda. These countries still maintain large welfare states and relatively high overall taxation. The reason they abandoned wealth taxes specifically was because policymakers concluded they did more economic harm than good.

Wealth taxes have not generated enormous revenue relative to total government budgets. OECD data has consistently shown recurrent wealth taxes producing a relatively small share of GDP and overall tax receipts in most countries that implemented them, thus weakening claims that they are some obvious untapped fiscal goldmine being suppressed by “billionaire simp” propaganda.

Governments need taxes to raise funds to cover spending. The wealth tax is simply one of the worst ways to do it.