There are two problems with the arguments from these opponents. First, they’re based on a premise that the American economy is doing just fine and we shouldn’t mess with success. But as the statistics above make clear, the economy is not doing fine. The country should be looking for new approaches.

Second, while it’s plausible that a wealth tax might further depress economic growth, it’s also plausible that a wealth tax would accelerate economic growth. Somehow, the opponents leave out that part.

How would it accelerate growth? Right now, the American economy is suffering from extreme inequality. A large portion of society’s resources are held by a tiny slice of people, who aren’t using the resources very efficiently. As my colleague Paul Krugman wrote this week, referring to Warren’s plans, “The only people who would be directly affected by her tax proposals are those who more or less literally have more money than they know what to do with.”

Sure, it’s theoretically possible that some entrepreneurs and investors might work less hard because of a 2 percent annual tax on their holdings above $50 million (the tax threshold under the Warren plan), thus sapping economic growth. But it’s more likely that any such effect would be small — and more than outweighed by the return that the economy would get on the programs that a wealth tax would finance, like education, scientific research, infrastructure and more. Those basic investments all have a long record of lifting economic growth. The very wealthy, however, don’t tend to spend much of their money building roads, starting community colleges or financing clean energy.

So don’t be fooled by the scaremongering. A wealth tax would have a significant effect on the economy’s distribution but probably only a modest effect on the growth rate. And if anything, the tax is likely to be pro-growth.