Warren is seeking to redistribute capitalism's rewards to a larger share of the population. It would kick in at $50 million with households paying a 2% annual tax on their assets like stocks, paintings, yachts, and homes. Then it would be ramped up to 6% for households with fortunes over $1 billion.
It's distinct from Sanders, who rolled out a proposal of his own taking aim at the existence of billionaires. The Vermont senator would impose a 1% annual tax starting at net worths of $32 million and gradually increase it to 8% on fortunes above $10 billion.
However, since Warren recently increased her top tax rate from 3% to 6%, both plans are now "almost identical," Saez says, referring to possible revenue generated and their overall redistributive effects.
Critics have argued the taxes wouldn't be effective because it would harm economic growth instead. Economists have also argued that the wealthy people subject to the tax would use accounting to evade the taxes and shelter their assets.
With that in mind, here's how much smaller the fortunes of the richest 11 US citizens would've been if Sanders' or Warren's proposed wealth taxes had been around since 1982, the first year Forbes magazine started estimating wealth.
These figures assume no evasion rate and are based on estimates from Saez and Zucman.