OT Too institute an 2%-3% Wealth Tax would inject approximately $400 to $600 Billion dollars a year into our government.
As I see it right now, Our new President wants to increase tax's on people who want to become millionaires, not those who are millionaires.
Although I wouldn't reject a wealth tax out of hand I don't think it addresses the underlying problem and I am always suspicious of any solution that says 'let the other guy pay for it'.
Also note that you changed the subject from unequal distribution to closing the budget deficit.
As for some ideas that get at the underlying structural issues - as I said before I think the real problem is the class of people who make a fortune risking other people's money (they get a lot of money when other people's money goes up and lose nothing when it goes down) so I tend to think along the lines of:
Any performance based compensation is taxed with a bifurcated tax rate - with any performance based compensation let ride for four years or longer taxed with capital gains rates, but any compensation pulled out before 4 years or with terms adjusted in the last 4 years taxed at a high income tax rate - e.g. more than 3 times the capital gains rate. (In this context I have no issue with increasing the top brackets substantially (say 40% above 250k, 45% above 750, ... 70% above 4M/Yr) - because they still have a way out if they are actually any good at what they are supposed to do.)
Comments welcome since I am just throwing out ideas.
PS I am not actually happy about someone (e.g. a sports star) paying 70% marginal tax rate. If s/he is worth that, so be it. So perhaps the ultra high marginal tax rate applies only to performance based compensation pulled out before 4 years.
PPS My argument for an approach like this is that people getting huge compensation for risking other people's money impose a HUGE cost on the system eventually (e.g. can you say Investment Banks). If they want to do that then they need to pay into the kitty.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
