When we are talking about a change in value, I’m going to have to disagree with you. A house doesn’t have more value over time, unless you change the house.

Value has a different meaning economically and it's pretty vague. Economically the only way to measure value is via the price of things. If you value a thing more you will pay more for it.

I disagree. House values go up over time because we incentivise people to buy rentals but have a lack of supply, leading to people borrowing as much money as they can to be able to get a house at all. House prices are tied to how much people are able to borrow, more than they are tied to anything of value.

It's a complicated formula but in the end it's supply and demand curves. What is the supply of housing in a place you want to live in? What's the supply of money and credit available for you to buy it.

I’m curious about the details of this. Most importantly, is it regressive?

Theoretically yes but in practice no. The fact is most people don't conduct repeated transactions. They earn money and then spend almost all of it. They don't shuttle money back and forth, do high frequency trading or anything like that. The bulk of the taxes will be paid by sophisticated actors with excess money to move around.

People hoarding wealth probably don’t make a lot of transactions with that wealth, it’s just shares sitting there being worth a lot.

True but it's rare when that property is not leveraged. You buy some land and you pay a transaction tax. Then you borrow against that land and you pay a transaction tax, you spend that money and you pay a transaction tax etc.

Where as people without much wealth have to spend all their money so end up paying more tax as a proportion of their wealth.

Wealthy people are constantly moving money around. They are constantly buying and selling shares, businesses, assets etc. They are also constantly borrowing money and paying it back. Also high frequency traders may make thousands of transactions every second.