The geezers I was referring to are people near or at retirement who have considerable funds, like about $1M, in IRA. 401K, and 403b retirement accounts. That number is probably somewhere between 500,000 and a million people, and there are millions more who have between $500,000 and a million dollars. It is my thesis that the wealth tax will generate nowhere near as much income as Warren and her economists claim and she will then have to go after the merely well-off. And the majority of these assets are in retirement accounts.\n\nI profoundly hate Warren's plan. It includes two concepts that are IMO un-American. First is that obnoxious wealth tax, which I believe will, like AMT before it, be applied very broadly as it fails to raise the revenue it promises, and mark-to-market, which taxes unrealized capital gains on stocks. Warren and her economists (and that idiot senator Ron Wyden) use the argument that real estate taxes already do this and we all accept them, but real estate has nowhere near the volatility of equities, meaning you could pay taxes on a unrealized gain and have a loss the next business day.\n\nThe plan also includes a transaction tax on equities. 0.1%, how bad could it be? For one thing, taxes never stay low, and for another she targets it at "the top 1% of households". Now how will she do that? Wealth or income? If wealth, will we all have to have our wealth appraised?\n\nHer plan includes massive range of tax increases, all of which will be passed on to every consumer. It also includes the provisions of the Sanders plan, which uses "compulsory licensing" for drug patents when the Pharma companies don't comply with their arbitrary pricing demands, so drug industry investment will plummet.\n\nThe rays of hope if Warren is somehow elected is that Congress won't approved these obnoxious plans, and that even it does the Supreme Court will rule most of this nonsense unconstitutional. And the combined arguments may take years. On the other hand I see and hear a lot of people supporting it because they think they can have other people pay for it and not them. So stupid.\n\n\nI'm offended by your use of the word 'geezer' for people who are approaching retirement, as I am in that age group. The difference is that I'm working on my second million- gave up on the first a long time ago. :)\n\nShe and others who think this kind of plan will work are unable to do simple math- if they gave their ideas as much thought as they give their own finances, they wouldn't paint such an optimistic picture of their lunacy. As the program fails, they'll eventually dip lower into the income range until they reach those who don't pay income tax which, as Mitt Romney was roasted for, amounts to over 45% of people of wage-earning age in the US. He can count this fact as a major reason for losing the election but it's still a fact. The .1% real estate tax will be added to the surcharge that was included in the ACA and it was added to the health care bill for reasons that we know- they'll slip this kind of crap into any bill that's so long nobody will read the whole thing.\n\nMore people need to think about this without so much trust in government- they seem to think our government has only noble reasons for what they do when it comes to "helping people" but not when the goal is to ensure the country's survival. No country can spend $52 trillion.