This kind of proposals tend to ignore how mobile wealthy people are. They might have more than one home - say, one in US, onw in Switzerland, one in Hong Kong, etc - and they might have luxury items here and there. Taxing such things with wildly different percentages is not going to work very well. The rich guys will just shop for that jewellery in Dubai and keep it in Hong Kong. Will you require him/her to declare and pay tax on it if he brings it to Paris for throwing a party there? Not likely going to work out.
Effectively, a country engaging in such tax procedures would be throwing out rich people, and while I can hear the jeers of "good riddance", I'm afraid that it's not really a good thing for tax revenues.
What's the difference between what you brought up and wealthy people just moving their holding companies to jurisdictions with lower capital gains and earnings tax? People should be mobile as they want to be in free societies. Do we believe that the state owns their citizens or a portion of those citizens working lives? The income tax presumes they do.
None, really, I wasn't trying to show such difference. Of course the same thing applies to many kinds of wealth.
Except land, which you cannot very easily move from one jurisdiction to another.
Edit: One recent example of the latter comes to my mind, of course. This is the case of properties in Crimea, now annexed by Russia. This is effectively a jurisdiction change. And it has some practical consequences, of course, although maybe not immediately related to tax; Crimean people need to register their properties into the Russian system, because Ukrainian property ownership is not recognized by the new powers-that-be. And registering is not free, and not even cheap, from what I hear.
Effectively, a country engaging in such tax procedures would be throwing out rich people, and while I can hear the jeers of "good riddance", I'm afraid that it's not really a good thing for tax revenues.