Sounds reasonable. The political optics angle might be interesting, since the "1%" is heavily labor based (Lawyers, Doctors, etc.), and the 0.01% isn't labor based, and I wonder how much it is resource based (i.e. Bill Gates and tech moguls aren't using natural resources, and the inheritance crowd aren't either).
The lack of discussion of cap gains and corporate income tax is peculiar. The devil is always in the details.
There is an assumption in the plan that labor is infinite and fungible and interchangeable and therefore quite worthless as a limitless pool, but reality is that "growing a doctor" takes a lot more time and resources than "growing a coal mine". As a strategy for centrally controlling a market, it would probably lead to more volatility in prices and supply and demand overall.
I'm not sure how the excise tax would be different from a carbon tax. That may be the whole point, here's a new marketing spin on a bad idea, look, its got a new name and everything...
