Your tail emission and demurrage proposals is an example of why bitcoin could never be written by just a programmer. Bitcoin solves an economic problem that has existed since the beginning of money; It brings into existence something that cannot be confiscated, counterfeited or inflated. What you propose are solutions to a problem that we don't even know will exist. To impose such a new 'legislation' is to change the terms of the contract, and it quickly transforms your proposed system into something other than bitcoin.

Tail emission solves two problems that are not proven to be problems; one that bitcoin can be lost, and two that there will not be sufficient incentive to mine with only fees.

Granted bitcoin can be lost, but this is a feature not a problem. Everyone that buys bitcoin signs up under this assumption and for once (unlike out present system of elastic and inflationary currency) everyone that holds bitcoin benefits directly from the mistakes of others no matter how much political influence they hold.

To keep mining the reward high with a wealth tax, or demurrage as you call it, is to ignore the purpose of bitcoin in the first place: to be an immutable store of wealth. With a demurrage, your wallet becomes a negative interest rate bearing account, and under hyperbitcoinization the function of unit of account will stabilize deflation and turn mining into an effective license to steal.

I haven't seen you make a full throated argument, or a demonstrable model, proving that your stated problems are unsolvable by simple market forces without changes to Bitcoin's algorithm. You presume everyone agree these problems exist and require your proposed solutions.