> Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals US economy has a non-negligible percentage of workers that are subject to windfall di

> Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals US economy has a non-negligible percentage of workers that are subject to windfall distributions - relatively low income for a long period and one excessively large payout upon success of some project. Book writers, movie industry, professional sports players, engineers at pre-IPO startups, real estate developers and everybody's favorites - hedge fund managers. It's unrealistic to expect them to continue enjoying the same level of income every year, for many it's simply a one-time chance at retirement money. Excessive taxation on such income without accounting for the previous (and future) years of low or no income seems unfair and will likely stall many long-term ventures. We could also introduce a 99.9% tax on Powerball winnings, but what does that do to the long-term health of the lottery? > the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property In an economy where large shareholders of Apple are subject to such tax (through their US residency) but large shareholders of Samsung (who happen to be Korea residents) are not, aren't you providing a leg up to any foreign money? (The actual companies are irrelevant, could be Ford and Toyota, or Boeing and Airbus.) Foreign entrepreneurs based in Singapore or Monaco have more spare cash to fund and operate their companies and invest in R&D. In the long-haul does that make the US economy stronger? Another issue is high-wealth but low-margin businesses. A family-owned supermarket chain might bring a wealth of >$50 mil, but their annual earnings on that might not be that outrageous. Under Warren's plan, they would effectively have to part with 2% of the supermarkets each year, not having enough cash on hands to pay the wealth tax bill. Is it a net win for the economy?