Implode-o-Meter News - Wealth Tax: For and Against

``The tax would apply to fortunes above $50 million, hitting them with a 2% annual rate; there would be a surcharge of 1% per year on wealth in excess of $1 billion. Economists advising her estimate that this tax on 75,000 families would raise $2.75 trillion in revenue over a 10-year period.
Not only would such a tax be very hard to administer, as many have pointed out. It likely won't collect nearly as much revenue as Warren claims.''

The linked article is against; this twitter thread has economist Gene Sperling arguing the "for" side.

For our part, we think 2% is too high. Even ignoring inflation, at that rate, assets/investments will be cut in half in value every 30 years or so. That seems punitive -- even if the goal is to penalize legacy wealth. Also, adding inflation, your are subjecting capital to a likely 5%+ penalty each year. Ignoring fairness, this will tend to drive investors into even crazier assets to chase yield. Whatever is done, we should avoid things that have an even more destabilizing effect on the financial economy.

Perhaps a tax on anomalously high-yield investments instead? A tax only on stocks? Etc.

Relevant:

Wealth Tax: For and Against