No! Snark and condescension only!

Sure - no condescension. Imagine you have $100,000 in your emergency savings fund.

Now imagine there's a 20% wealth tax on that. You also already paid income tax on the money that you put into that savings account.

So, after one year in the savings account you now have $80,000. 2 years, you now have 62,000. Year 3 it's around 48,000.

That doesn't include the effects of inflation, which does the same thing as that tax would do but usually at 2% per year (currently at 4% per year) and it's less visible because it's reducing the value of those dollars rather than taking them away.

Lol.that is all.

I didn't think I had to explicitly repeat what I said in a couple other comments I made on the matter. I won't cut and paste that for you, (and since you set the mode to name calling) shithead.

Yes, if no special cases are welritten into the law. Though there would be no way to outpace the tax as your wealth is being taxed not the money being added to the wealth.

Retirement accounts aren't really a great example because they're already supposed to be tax exempt or tax delayed. However the principle is the same. I just described what would happen to a emergency savings fund with a 20% wealth tax 8on another comment

Now, in reality no sane politician would put a blanket rule in. Instead it would be anything over x amount of money. While that may appeal to populism, it is still double taxation and an injustice.

A more just effect can be attained through better means, like actually enforcing progressive tax laws that take more taxes as the income gets progressively higher.

Here, progressive is not related to the political movement.