yeah i think even in that scenario, their options aren't limited to
a) 1.5 million dollar home
b) living on the streets
the tax burden should be representative of what somebody can generally pay. somebody earning 50 million per year wouldn't realistically be able to observe a difference in standard of living between having a marginal tax rate of 37% or 47%, while a 10% difference could cripple a family of 4 with a household income of 60k (median in the US). its not a punishment, its a realistic representation on what people can part with without jeopardizing their livelihood.Policy also tends to punish what people consider "bad behavior" like a tabacco tax/sugar tax etc. So how is a wealth tax not an attack/punishment towards wealth? And I'm not sure what you think wealthy people do with their money but they aren't just stuffing it into a safe, if they have any brains (which I'd assume an extremely wealthy person would) then they'd be reinvesting that money into the economy to make more money.
the wealth tax is a bit of a different category, but i think i'd just be repeating my previous post. i think instead of "stimulating the economy" through investing in stock portfolios so they can raise their net worth from 55 million to 60 million, we'd be better served with a small percentage (warren's plan is 2% of wealth in excess of 50 mil) of that going toward child care/college tuitions, etc