Do you support a 1% Federal Wealth Tax to pay down the $39T National Debt? (Poll)

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A, it's not the Federal Governments job to fund your retirement

It sure is, by law. So that's wrong.

B, They are bad at it anyway

They are much better at it than leaving it to private individuals, which is why social security was invented in the first place. So that's wrong,too.

C, It's a massive wealth thief

If you want to be laughed out of a room of serious, educated people having an economic discussion, say, "Taxes are theft."

D, It's not actually about funding a retirement and it's just another tax which the Government then mismanages.

In right wing goober fantasyland, maybe. In reality, Social Security, for example, has been a pillar of our society and economy, is unversally loved, and is wildly successful.

 

[DennisPTate]

A Federal Wealth Tax on financial assets might be one way to pay down the $39T National Debt.
Another would be to eliminate all "tax deductions".
A "sweetener" could be to couple the increase in "wealth" taxes with a "Balanced Budget" Law to forbid future Federal borrowing.

Wealth Tax 2025 Debate: U.S. Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Wealth Tax 2025 debate in the U.S. explores constitutional limits, federal authority, and potential court challenges.

lawdropusa.com

Q: What is a wealth tax?
A: A levy on net assets such as stocks, and cash holdings, rather than annual income.

Q: Is a wealth tax constitutional?
A: Opponents argue it violates apportionment rules; supporters claim the Sixteenth Amendment provides sufficient authority.

Q: Has the U.S. ever had a wealth tax?
A: No comprehensive federal wealth tax has been enacted, though estate and property taxes function similarly in scope.

Q: Why is the wealth tax 2025 debate significant?
A: It tests the balance between government taxing power and constitutional limits, with potential Supreme Court involvement.

Just doing some simple math.
If there is approximately $269T of "financial" wealth in the US, and the current Debt is $40T, and we want to pay that debt off in 8-years, that means a $5T tax or a ~2% wealth tax on all financial assets, but only for 8-years.
(it could be 1% over 16-years, if that is easier to sell)

View attachment 1228771

Problem solved. No debt, and no more borrowing.

This is certainly a good question....
but there is a far better way to pay down the massive USA National Debt.

An "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement " to all three hundred and thirty million Americans as advocated by Economist Milton Friedman.

The existing Welfare State rewards lethargy and un-productivity but Dr. Friedman explained a way to take the Social Safety Net out from under the control of Bureaucrats.

Make it Unconditional .... at the same rate no matter what somebody's income was last year or last month.... but make it Taxable......

The national debt of the USA is significantly a practical joke being played on ninety nine point nine, nine percent of Americans by a tiny group of very influential and wealthy people who know how to control the Washington Swamp through their BigMedia.

Thread 'Mo Gawdat predicts that A. I. will lead to B. M. I? Is he correct?'

Nov 22, 2025

Mo Gawdat predicts that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will lead to the need for B. M. I., is he correct?

I believe that he is but there are certain aspects of the history of the United States that need to be widely understood before we can get this right.

We must understand that in theory three hundred and fifty million Americans own the USA Dollar itself, [but elected officials have been convinced that they own it due to the influence of a group know as "Neo-Malthusians."

"Ex-Google Exec (WARNING): The Next 15 Years Will Be Hell Before We Get To...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 33
• Forum: Science and Technology

The key to doing this is to FINANCE this Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement exactly like President Lincoln financed the Civil War and saved USA taxpayers FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST PAYMENTS!

Abraham Lincoln is assassinated​

Abraham Lincoln​

​

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861–1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North's war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!
His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him:
“Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also.”
This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called “Greenbacks” by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)
Lincoln called these Greenbacks “the greatest blessing the American people have ever had.” A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the stealing of the nation's credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln's work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):
“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” (The monarchy of the money lenders.)
First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the “Exception Clause”, which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)
This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:
“I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe.”
Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!
William Jennings Bryan: “The banks ought to get out”

Chapter 49 — The History of Banking Control in the United States

This fight of the International Financiers to install their fraudulent debt-money system has been particularly vicious in the United States of America since its very foundation, and historical facts show that several American statesmen were well aware of the dishonest money system the Financiers...

famguardian.org

​

 

[kyzr]

This is certainly a good question....
but there is a far better way to pay down the massive USA National Debt.

An "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement " to all three hundred and thirty million Americans as advocated by Economist Milton Friedman.

The existing Welfare State rewards lethargy and un-productivity but Dr. Friedman explained a way to take the Social Safety Net out from under the control of Bureaucrats.

Make it Unconditional .... at the same rate no matter what somebody's income was last year or last month.... but make it Taxable......

The national debt of the USA is significantly a practical joke being played on ninety nine point nine, nine percent of Americans by a tiny group of very influential and wealthy people who know how to control the Washington Swamp through their BigMedia.

The key to doing this is to FINANCE this Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement exactly like President Lincoln financed the Civil War and saved USA taxpayers FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST PAYMENTS!

Before we get a BMI we need to pay the $39T debt down, otherwise the dollar collapses

 

[SaxonJackson]

Logic tells you it isn't necessary .
Trump promised to eliminate the national debt without this 1% thing in his agenda. Therefore the tax you mention won't be necessary.
View attachment 1228772

Have you seen the National Debt Clock recently? It increases by a $Million about every 17 seconds. We're in year two of Trumps disastrous return. What gives?

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[DennisPTate]

Before we get a BMI we need to pay the $39T debt down, otherwise the dollar collapses

Take a look at this:

Thread 'Is the national debt of the United States significantly a practical joke?'

Mar 10, 2026

A joke that is being played on ninety nine, point nine, nine percent of Americans by a tiny group of extremely wealthy and influential people and the owners of BigMedia and BigOil who cooperate with them?

Economist Milton Friedman gave the key to paying down the National Debt of the United States Rapidly,
an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement that is at the same rate, [the same number per month], but it is Unconditional and not based on your income last month or even last year, [which means that little or no bureaucracy or dishonest bureaucrats are needed to make...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 26
• Forum: Politics

• 

 

[sparky]

tax the wealthy, and the wealthy will leave

capitalism is no longer attractive here

do the math

~S~

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Logic tells you it isn't necessary .

lol...sounds funny when you say it/use it

Trump promised to eliminate the national debt without this 1% thing in his agenda. Therefore the tax you mention won't be necessary.

logic tell you he won't be re-elected?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

tax the wealthy, and the wealthy will leave

No they won't. They will stay where they are getting rich.

 

[task0778]

This is certainly a good question....
but there is a far better way to pay down the massive USA National Debt.

An "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement " to all three hundred and thirty million Americans as advocated by Economist Milton Friedman.

The existing Welfare State rewards lethargy and un-productivity but Dr. Friedman explained a way to take the Social Safety Net out from under the control of Bureaucrats.

Make it Unconditional .... at the same rate no matter what somebody's income was last year or last month.... but make it Taxable......

The national debt of the USA is significantly a practical joke being played on ninety nine point nine, nine percent of Americans by a tiny group of very influential and wealthy people who know how to control the Washington Swamp through their BigMedia.

Thread 'Mo Gawdat predicts that A. I. will lead to B. M. I? Is he correct?'

Nov 22, 2025

Mo Gawdat predicts that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will lead to the need for B. M. I., is he correct?

I believe that he is but there are certain aspects of the history of the United States that need to be widely understood before we can get this right.

We must understand that in theory three hundred and fifty million Americans own the USA Dollar itself, [but elected officials have been convinced that they own it due to the influence of a group know as "Neo-Malthusians."

"Ex-Google Exec (WARNING): The Next 15 Years Will Be Hell Before We Get To...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 33
• Forum: Science and Technology

The key to doing this is to FINANCE this Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement exactly like President Lincoln financed the Civil War and saved USA taxpayers FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST PAYMENTS!

This is called monetizing the debt, just printing or creating more money out of thin air. AI Summary:

Yes, Abraham Lincoln did monetize the debt during his presidency. This process involved issuing paper currency, known as "greenbacks," which were used to finance the Civil War. The issuance of greenbacks was a significant step in managing the Union's financial needs, as it allowed the government to borrow money without relying solely on gold or silver reserves. Lincoln's administration also sought loans from banks to support the war effort, totaling millions in gold.

Additionally, the greenbacks were considered part of the federal debt, which implied future taxation to repay this debt. This approach was crucial for maintaining the Union's financial stability during a tumultuous period in American history.

***

Under the Banking and Currency Acts of 1862 and 1863, a national currency, supplemental to the private bank note issues, was created by Lincoln, called the “greenback.” During the war, $450 million in greenbacks were issued. These were Treasury obligations and notes that circulated as common currency. As claims against the U.S. government, they could be used in all transactions. At the time of issue, greenbacks constituted almost one-half of the amount of currency in circulation. By creating $450 million worth, Lincoln increased government spending by 300%!

[Treasury obligations and notes are another name for debt that the gov't has to make good on.]


Your solution just adds trillions more of debt all at once.

 

[kyzr]

Take a look at this:

At least Friedman put up a prediction.
BUT, AI can't do most manual jobs, so we don't need BMI as much as retraining.
Humans are needed to do "sanity checks" to prevent AI from "hallucinating" results.
My daughter says that their AI is generally wrong.
I'm sure it will increase productivity, but only after years of "trial & error".

 

[DennisPTate]

This is called monetizing the debt, just printing or creating more money out of thin air. AI Summary:

Yes, Abraham Lincoln did monetize the debt during his presidency. This process involved issuing paper currency, known as "greenbacks," which were used to finance the Civil War. The issuance of greenbacks was a significant step in managing the Union's financial needs, as it allowed the government to borrow money without relying solely on gold or silver reserves. Lincoln's administration also sought loans from banks to support the war effort, totaling millions in gold.

Additionally, the greenbacks were considered part of the federal debt, which implied future taxation to repay this debt. This approach was crucial for maintaining the Union's financial stability during a tumultuous period in American history.

***

Under the Banking and Currency Acts of 1862 and 1863, a national currency, supplemental to the private bank note issues, was created by Lincoln, called the “greenback.” During the war, $450 million in greenbacks were issued. These were Treasury obligations and notes that circulated as common currency. As claims against the U.S. government, they could be used in all transactions. At the time of issue, greenbacks constituted almost one-half of the amount of currency in circulation. By creating $450 million worth, Lincoln increased government spending by 300%!

[Treasury obligations and notes are another name for debt that the gov't has to make good on.]


Your solution just adds trillions more of debt all at once.

One more thing: show me where Friedman ever advocated for BMI. I do not believe it.

Correct!

But this can be done in a way that could actually work and make life better for Americans or this could be done in a manner that is deliberately planned to fail.

Donald J. Trump terrified the people who control BigMedia when he called for "Audit The Fed" back in 2016. That is when the owners of BigMedia decided that they had to resort to drastic measures to get rid of Trump, because they knew that they could not control him, and that he would eventually put out the truth on all of this!

 

[Nostra]

No they won't. They will stay where they are getting rich.

Idiots like you didn’t think the rich would change their behavior when the Yacht tax was implemented.

 

[task0778]

But this can be done in a way that could actually work and make life better for Americans

I have my doubts about this. First, Friedman proposed a negative income tax rather than a BMI, correct? From Wikipedia:

An attempt was made to synthesise the results and provide a nation-wide estimate of the effects of NIT in the US using two plans, one with 75% and the other with 100% guarantee and 50% and 70% tax rates. The corresponding programmes would cost between 6.7 and 16.3 billion dollars, (-5.3) to 4.5 billion dollars, 55.5 to 61.1 billion dollars and 15.4 to 25.7 billion dollars (value expressed in 1985 dollars) respectively. These are net costs, meaning how much more the NIT would cost relative to the welfare programmes in effect at the time. For the latter two options, i.e. 100% guarantee with either 50% or 70% tax rate, it would represent an increase in spending equal to 1.5 percent of the gross national product (GNP) and 0.4-0.6 percent of GNP. The net increase could be financed by increase in federal taxes from 2 to 4 percent. While the cost of eliminating poverty seemed attainable, the issue of decreased earnings and self-support among families remained prevalent. Hence, the issues likely caused the decrease in interest in implementation of NIT, as the work of donor is a bit higher than the work of the recipient and can potentially lead to free riding which would destroy the entire framework.

There were some smaller scale experiments done in the 60s and 70s, and I think one or two out in CA not too long ago. San Fran maybe. One assumes that if it didn't work there than it wasn't going to work anywhere else. 50% and 70% tax rates? Holy shit, Batman!

Look at the statement about the issue of decreased earnings and self-support among families remained prevalent. For a lot of people, their attitude would be why work at all? I'm getting free money!

I like many of Friedman's ideas about economics, but I don't see this one as feasible or even desirable. We shouldn't enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor.

 

[citygator]

You have same problem many libs have

You want to ride on the backs of others who you are jealous of because they have more money than you

I say tax everyone and every dollar of income with no exemptions

That would put most tax consultants out of business along with most IRS agrnts

The percentage of taxation would be very low, single digits for sure

But you could not put the bite on your betters without hurting yourself also

Then reduce spending to equal income

Very few people make more money than me. If you are one, congrats. That puts you in the top 0.3% of earners in the country.

The bottom 50% earned $2.5T dollars last year.
The top 50% earned $22.5T dollars last year.

A 2% tax rate on the top 50% raises more than a 20% tax on the bottom 50%. There is no amount of taxing you can do on the bottom 50% that makes a difference in federal income receipts.

I paid $340k in taxes last year. Under Biden's plan i would have paid $370K. Why does that insult the shit out of your senses? How much money should we pass on to future generations so that my taxes are slightly lower?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Very few people make more money than me. If you are one, congrats. That puts you in the top 0.3% of earners in the country.

The bottom 50% earned $2.5T dollars last year.
The top 50% earned $22.5T dollars last year.

A 2% tax rate on the top 50% raises more than a 20% tax on the bottom 50%. There is no amount of taxing you can do on the bottom 50% that makes a difference in federal income receipts.

I paid $340k in taxes last year. Under Biden's plan i would have paid $370K. Why does that insult the shit out of your senses? How much money should we pass on to future generations so that my taxes are slightly lower?

lol...Yeah ok...I earn one dollar a year and do not understand how my paying the same amount on my dollar as everyone else pays on theirs is unfair? in fact it is the very definition of fair, so fair that it is in fact your "senses" that are the very thing that's insulting.

 

[Mac-7]

Very few people make more money than me. If you are one, congrats. That puts you in the top 0.3% of earners in the country.

The bottom 50% earned $2.5T dollars last year.
The top 50% earned $22.5T dollars last year.

A 2% tax rate on the top 50% raises more than a 20% tax on the bottom 50%. There is no amount of taxing you can do on the bottom 50% that makes a difference in federal income receipts.

I paid $340k in taxes last year. Under Biden's plan i would have paid $370K. Why does that insult the shit out of your senses? How much money should we pass on to future generations so that my taxes are slightly lower?

I’m impressed

You could have claimed paying $1 million in taxes and no one could prove otherwise

But instead modestly limited yourself to $340,000

Thats very sporting of you

The reason I want to tax the bottom 50% at the same rate as the top is so that libs cant fleece the top 50% without hurting themselves also

 

[Samofvt]

Yea, we'd hate to see some kid get a candy bar & a soda as a treat once a week.

Typical attitude of a right wing straight up asshole.

What's wrong with working to earn your candy? Is your fat *** kid so privileged that they can't take a job at the local grocery or cafeteria or gas station?

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Ok, tell me what happens to the party that wants to cut SS or Medicare benefits.

I think its called "the 3rd rail" for a reason.

It mainly goes to the middle class. Nobody wants to lose that voter base, as not only old people get it, it helps their children and grandchildren financially as well.

 

[Samofvt]

So show us how we pay it down without new taxes, considering that "discretionary spending" isn't discretionary.

I'll show you how, buddy...

 

[Samofvt]

Someone making 25k a year from 18-65 who never gets a raise in 47 years who invests just what SS takes out of their paycheck employee and employer in an S&P index fund at 8% (normal S&P is 10% annually) would retire with 1.7 million in their retirement fund. The return on that money would allow them to retire on 126k a year without touching the principle. If you and your wife would only have 500$ a month retirement without SS you might be retarded.


I want to do away with it because

A, it's not the Federal Governments job to fund your retirement

B, They are bad at it anyway

C, It's a massive wealth thief

D, It's not actually about funding a retirement and it's just another tax which the Government then mismanages.

I'm sorry that you are bad with money. There are tons of online resources you can access to get better. Also, you could have just given your money to a manager, and he would take care of it for you.

Here's a compromise. Those who need their Daddy (the US government ie you) to handle their financial future can opt into SS. Since according to you SS is just paying back what you're owed from paying in, the people who don't want to be involved with SS should be able to opt out without it affecting the program. All I want is what I've already paid in to be returned, actually you can keep it, if that's the price I have to pay to get out of it now. (BTW I'm 10 years from collecting so I would be losing a ton of money by doing that).

I don't know why you need the Government to force you to save some money for retirement. Your bank will ACH money to an investment account which would then be invested by your account manager. How is that any different than what the Government is doing minus the fact that if you die at 64 you just lose all that money you "paid in" for all those years and them getting to decide for you how much money you get to have from your account as well as when you can take it out.

Admiral Rockwell Tory

I happen to agree with the lazy bastard. [did they sensor it? <=]

The real problem is that the fed has stolen your money for so long that you have no other choice. The damage is done for you (and me, frankly). I have been trying to plan for a retirement knowing SS (et al) is bankrupt, but it's no use. The only reason I have to have a full time job now is because ... taxes.

Apparently I'm also funding the teachers' and state union workers' retirement. Described another way, this looks like extortion.