You're doing that thing where if a policy doesn't single-handedly solve the entire deficit, it's useless — and that’s intellectually dishonest. First: a wealth tax is not a one-off. Warren’s and Sanders’ proposals are annual taxes. Over 10 years, that’s trillions. Second: yes, the U.S. is uniquely positioned to enforce it better than other OECD countries. We have the IRS, global financial leverage, and the world's reserve currency. Denmark doesn’t exactly have the same reach. Third: no one said a wealth tax alone fixes everything. You want more? Cool: End stepped-up basis on capital gains Raise corporate tax rates to pre-2017 levels Enforce anti-monopoly measures Cut fossil fuel subsidies Trim the defense budget Add those up, and now we're talking hundreds of billions more annually. You can’t say “math is the problem” while refusing to count all the numbers. And finally — even if it only generates $350B/year, that’s still more than what we spend on most departments. It's not about finding one magic fix. It's about building a sustainable, fairer system piece by piece. A wealth tax is one of those pieces — and an obvious one.
Your solution to a fairer system is a tax that targets 1 in 500,000 people who are already paying the most taxes? You have a very interesting sense of fairness.
You make the most you pay the most, that is how it works. Eisenhower had an 87% corporate tax rate and a much higher wealth tax, and we build the greatest economy and infrastructure of all time. Now that is crumbling because Reagan screwed the country by giving back to the rich, then the supreme court allowed corporations to bribe politicians and the rich bought off the GOP party...... There is ZERO reason for a tax break for the rich, none. DD
Another thought on spending - SNAP. $100B+ year and the income inequality conversation in this thread. Basically, I wonder if the low wage jobs are effectively being subsidized by things like SNAP benefits - meaning, are employers able to get away with a lower wage b/c the government is supplementing the income of low wage jobs? So, in that sense, if minimum wages were raised, wouldn't less people qualify for SNAP, which would save the government some portion of the $ paid via SNAP? Obviously the costs to employers goes up, but the system should be more efficient by reducing government involvement. I wonder what other subsidies come into play like SNAP that would effectively help the government reduce its spending? On another related note, I wonder how much of the federal spending is because they don't trust states to spend the appropriate level of $ on items? Meaning, things like defense are obviously at a national level. But should the federal government reduce $ to states and force the states to bear more of the burden? I realize this is a bit of left pocket/right pocket, but the pork projects probably decrease as the distance between government making the decision and the taxpayer decreases? I'm just guessing that cities pass less "bridges to nowhere" type projects than states, etc...
This is what you "don't get". You are a genuine Libertarian, and you do correspond in good faith and are a bright man. However as @Buck Turgidson would say, you are "bat **** crazy". it is okay, we all have something.
you need to stop parroting convenient lies ~~60% of the income tax collected by the IRS are paid by the bottom 99% earners
You're not providing ANY numbers. How am I suppose to count them? You're proposing pie in the sky policies that have been tried and not worked in any other developed economy [wealth tax] and then a host of left-wing tax policies... without ANY numbers.
In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...s-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs Warren calls the policy her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax." It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person's net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years. $275 billion a year in the [best case scenario]. If this was feasible, which it isn't. We have a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit and a $37 trillion dollar debt. That's before not trying to fund any NEW liberal policies if such a wealth tax is ever instituted.
You want me to deep dive into the numbers as if I'm the CBO? Sadly I don't have all the data in front of me to calculate the exact savings, but I promise you that you would be on the path back to a balanced budget. You aren't going to close a $2T deficit in one fiscal year without massive economic consequences. My goal would be to get to a balanced budget in 4 years.
You keep repeating “pie-in-the-sky” and “no numbers” — but here they are, directly from credible estimates: Wealth tax (Warren plan): ~$3 trillion over 10 years → $300B/year Capital gains reform (tax unrealized gains, eliminate step-up basis): $170B/year Raise corporate tax to 28%: $150B/year End fossil fuel subsidies: $20B/year Close carried interest loophole: $18B/year Trim defense budget by 10%: $80B/year That’s over $800 billion a year — nearly half the $1.8 trillion deficit. So yes, I am providing numbers. You just didn’t like what they added up to. Insisting that we don’t act unless a single policy erases the entire deficit is intellectually lazy. That’s not how policy works. You don’t fix a broken system with one tool — you use several, and yes, a wealth tax should be one of them. You're intellectually dishonest.
So even in your best case scenario we still have a $1 trillion dollar deficit and there is no progress on the $37 trillion debt. Hallelujah. We're saved.
So I lay out a plan that cuts the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars a year — with actual policies and numbers — and your response is smug sarcasm? That’s not serious engagement. That’s just nihilism in a fiscal responsibility costume. Of course it doesn’t wipe out the entire debt in one swing — nothing does. That’s why smart countries use multi-pronged approaches: grow the economy, close loopholes, raise revenue, control spending. That’s how actual fiscal policy works — not fantasy one-and-done fixes. You keep pretending to care about “the math,” but when the math works, you shrug and mock. And still: no solutions from you. Just excuses, vibes, and whatever helps billionaires sleep better at night.
The math doesn't work. You keep inflating even your own fantasy figures. First you would cut the deficit by $800 billion, now it's $1 trillion. Wipe out the debt? You don't even begin to tackle the deficit with your best case scenario proposals which will never come off. You're the one who isn't serious. This is all fantastical nonsense - some sort of perfect wealth tax that is going to hit its high side projections and not fail like every other wealth tax. And even if it DID you don't get the deficit below a $1 trillion. And where are you going to get the next $1 trillion to balance the budget? You've already instituted a wealth tax, you've already raised corporate tax rates to 28%, you've already cut defense by 10%, you've already taxed unrealized gain on stocks, you've already ended fossil fuel subsidies. and, assuredly, none of that ^ will have a negative economic impact. Where's the next $1 trillion coming from?
Cleary 60% is less than 99%, meaning the bottom 60% are paying less per capita than even a flat distribution. The top 1% are paying 40% of the income tax, which is clearly the most. I think you might actually be r****ded if you can't understand that 1% of people paying 40% of the taxes are paying the most taxes. I get it, I also get that words have meaning. There is nothing "fair" about targeting an extreme minority to have them pay even more than they already are when they are already massively subsidizing the vast supermajority. If you had a friend group and there was one really, really rich friend, 4 that were very comfortable, 5 that slightly below them, 15 that have plenty but have to make financial tradeoffs, 25 that are doing better than average (like experienced schoolteachers) and 50 that were getting by, would it be "fair" to demand that every time you hung out that the 1 guy covered 37% of the bill, the next 4 covered 22% of the bill, 5 covered the next 11%, 15 covered 17%, 25 covered 10% and 50 freeloaded every time (our current system)? If that was already happening, would it be "fair" to say the 1 guy wasn't paying his fair share and that he should be forced to just hand out cash to the 50 who never pay (a wealth tax on the top 1%)? I don't think anyone would actually think that system sounds fair. I don't think the bottom 50% would keep getting invited to hang out. By "fair", what progressives really mean is that it won't financially crush the rich to pay more taxes, and it sure seems nice to give more money to the poor. That isn't "fair", it is just what people have voted to be the system and those stuck with the bills have accepted. Fair would be everyone pays their own way.
You keep shifting the bar like it’s a CrossFit workout. First I gave you real numbers. Then you wanted projections. Then you moved to “none of this will ever happen.” Now it’s, “Okay, pretend it does work — what’s next?” This isn’t a debate. It’s you running from the core fact: We can raise hundreds of billions in sustainable, targeted revenue with policies that overwhelmingly impact the ultra-wealthy and largest corporations — while taking a massive chunk out of the deficit. That's real progress, and no amount of eye-rolling changes that. Of course no single package solves everything forever. That’s why smart policy is iterative — you adjust, expand, and refine based on outcomes, economic feedback, and political feasibility. That’s how grown-up governance works. Meanwhile, you’ve offered zero ideas — just an endless string of reasons why we can’t touch wealth at the top. If you’re not going to suggest real alternatives, then you’re not arguing for solutions. You’re just arguing for nothing to change.
