anything (other than kiddos), you'll get no argument from me about getting rid of any deductions. And yes, those deductions mostly serve the high earners, and serve to make our progressive taxes not as progressive as we pretend.

But if your goal is to raise income to take care of those less fortunate (and we're throwing in the towel on either party ever doing a damn thing about the spending problem), then why not just add a 1% (just to put a number on it) flat tax on all incomes over the poverty line? That would certainly generate a lot more revenue than would this proposed wealth tax. But that's not how populist policy works. Got to convince voters someone else will pay so we can "feel better" about taking care of those less fortunate. (now up to, but not limited to those of us sending kids to college apparently) And it wouldn't discourage saving/wealth accumulation or encourage ways to shelter yourself from ways to avoid this tax.

If your goal is to get those "'evil" folks that inherit their wealth, while ignoring that wealth was all taxed as income on the way to being accumulated, then why not argue for a sensible, fair and effective inheritance tax on almost everyone. There's some validity to that, as capital gains do not get taxed fairly as it is passed on to the next generation. Again to put numbers on it, to capture some of that lost cap gains tax (while recognizing inflation) hit anyone inheriting over $100K 5% of market value, and step it up to 10% over 1, 5 or 10M if you must. Again, that would generate a lot more than our current system, address the flaws in our current system, and not discourage savings/wealth accumulation. Instead we have a nonsensical one that whacks a tiny portion of people starting at 40% of market value. But again, the problem is that's not how populist policy works.