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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why? What state are you subsidizing? Taxpayers did nothing for my teacher retirement in KY.

Cute joke BTW!

 

[Clipper]

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?

No, is yours, smart guy? Is corporate America so inept that they can't make it without another pne of Trump's tax cut handouts? . Or are they just greedy? Do Trump's millionaire/billionaire MAL ass kissers need another tax cut to buy a bigger yacht, you asswipe?

Typical MAGA. Soiling themselves because a kid gets a candy bar one day a week using SNAP. GFY.

 

[citygator]

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.

You havent addressed the issue. If the bottom 50% are earning a total of $2.5T and the top is earning $22.5T what are you trying to achieve. The bottom 50% only pays about $100B in taxes which is around 4%. The top pays about $2.4T in taxes. That is about 10% effective tax rate. That's not a whole lot of taxes being paid by the top 50% of earners. What are you complaining about?

 

[task0778]

... we find that if all assets greater than $50 million ($25 million for unmarried filers) were subject to a 1 percent tax, the tax would raise nearly $2 trillion over a 10-year period, with about 86 percent of the tax borne by families in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

https://taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Taxing-Wealth-in-the-United-States-Issues-and-Challenges.pdf

So, that's $200 billion per year, right? But our annual deficits are approaching $2 Trillion, so a 1% wealth tax ain't gonna do it. Neither is 2%, it's a ridiculous idea.

You tell me, what would Congress and the Prez do with an extra $200 bill? Damn straight, they'd spend it on their political priorities, and reducing the debt isn't one of them for either party. So - until that changes, any talk of higher taxes to reduce the debt is nonsense.

Let me say this clearly: there is no way to reduce the debt that doesn't start with less spending, specifically less than revenue.

 

[Nostra]

You havent addressed the issue. If the bottom 50% are earning a total of $2.5T and the top is earning $22.5T what are you trying to achieve. The bottom 50% only pays about $100B in taxes which is around 4%. The top pays about $2.4T in taxes. That is about 10% effective tax rate. That's not a whole lot of taxes being paid by the top 50% of earners. What are you complaining about?

Define the Rich’s fair share.

Give us some numbers.

 

[citygator]

Define the Rich’s fair share.

Give us some numbers.

Based on your percent of disposable income.

Bottom 50% have no disposable income. There share should be about zero.

Top 50% have 99% of disposable income. They should pay 99% of taxes. Divide how much we need by our disposable income. Easy.

 

[Nostra]

Based on your percent of disposable income.

Bottom 50% have no disposable income. There share should be about zero.

Top 50% have 99% of disposable income. They should pay 99% of taxes. Divide how much we need by our disposable income. Easy.

So, like it is now.

Define disposable income.

 

[citygator]

So, like it is now.

Define disposable income.

Except we are not collecting enough taxes overall. I demonstrated that. When we were balanced we collected 20% of GDP in tax revenue. We are down to 16%. No way we will see a balanced budget. Need 20% revenue and 20% expenses. We are at 16% revenue and 23% expenses.

Both need adjusting with the biggest piece carved out of the boomers bleeding us dry.

 

[Couchpotato]

You havent addressed the issue. If the bottom 50% are earning a total of $2.5T and the top is earning $22.5T what are you trying to achieve. The bottom 50% only pays about $100B in taxes which is around 4%. The top pays about $2.4T in taxes. That is about 10% effective tax rate. That's not a whole lot of taxes being paid by the top 50% of earners. What are you complaining about?

The top 50 pay 97% of all the taxes. The bottom pays 3%. If we are talking “fair share” how is that “fair”. Add onto that the bottom 50% use the majority of the social services (which make up the largest part of our budget). How much the top makes or doesn’t make is effectively irrelevant. They are already paying for everything.

 

[Couchpotato]

Except we are not collecting enough taxes overall. I demonstrated that. When we were balanced we collected 20% of GDP in tax revenue. We are down to 16%. No way we will see a balanced budget. Need 20% revenue and 20% expenses. We are at 16% revenue and 23% expenses.

Both need adjusting with the biggest piece carved out of the boomers bleeding us dry.

Or we could reduce expenses to 15%.

 

[norwegen]

No new taxes!

The government needs to downsize.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Or just a mundane part of the social contract in a modern society.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You havent addressed the issue.

because I was addressing the last failed attempt at trying to claim someone elses money as an entitlement...

If the bottom 50% are earning a total of $2.5T and the top is earning $22.5T what are you trying to achieve. The bottom 50% only pays about $100B in taxes which is around 4%. The top pays about $2.4T in taxes. That is about 10% effective tax rate. That's not a whole lot of taxes being paid by the top 50% of earners.

so what did/does your income and tax rate fantasy have to do with any of that?

What are you complaining about?

ah, you come in with a tired old complaint about wanting to pay more in taxes [yet you don't] and then accuse anyone who addresses it as complaining...you can get away with that when dealing with the type of education our tax dollars pay for but unless you have one of those educations yourself you have to know it won't fly with anyone else...and why all of a sudden is suggesting everyone ACTUALLY pay their fair share complaining? did you always consider it to be complaining?

 

[task0778]

Except we are not collecting enough taxes overall. I demonstrated that. When we were balanced we collected 20% of GDP in tax revenue. We are down to 16%. No way we will see a balanced budget. Need 20% revenue and 20% expenses. We are at 16% revenue and 23% expenses.

Both need adjusting with the biggest piece carved out of the boomers bleeding us dry.

FYI, the latest data from the St Louis Fed as of Feb 2026 is 17%. Not sure about the 23% expenses, sounds about right though. Some people believe that cutting spending down to 20% would increase revenues quite a bit cuz investors would have more money to invest in the private sector without raising taxes at all. AND raising taxes is also believed by many to be counter productive to economic growth, which means a bigger slice of a smaller pie. IOW, some increase in revenue but not as much as projected by linear math. So, if we want to stop increasing the national debt and begin to pay it down then we're gonna have to start but cutting spending first. Right now the annual deficit is getting close to $2 trillion/year, and we cannot raise taxes by that much without some serious consequences.

BTW, most of us boomers are not exactly wealthy, y'know?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Welfare is managed by the states.... The states would just have to tax the populace of their state more to make up the delta the Fed is filling.

Saw how well that went in Minnesota and the Somalis.....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

By what measure?

Intelligence. How else could Tampon Tim get elected along with that freekazoid Elision. Both dumber than a box of rocks, which means their votes are much dumber than they are.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

FYI, the latest data from the St Louis Fed as of Feb 2026 is 17%. Not sure about the 23% expenses, sounds about right though. Some people believe that cutting spending down to 20% would increase revenues quite a bit cuz investors would have more money to invest in the private sector without raising taxes at all. AND raising taxes is also believed by many to be counter productive to economic growth, which means a bigger slice of a smaller pie. IOW, some increase in revenue but not as much as projected by linear math. So, if we want to stop increasing the national debt and begin to pay it down then we're gonna have to start but cutting spending first. Right now the annual deficit is getting close to $2 trillion/year, and we cannot raise taxes by that much without some serious consequences.

BTW, most of us boomers are not exactly wealthy, y'know?

Back in 1991 when Hitlery announced that the social security lock box had been raided by the democrats and that it could eventually fail, i got as many "How stupid people can acquire wealth for dummies books" and proceeded to educate myself in amassing a large amount of money and find ways like democrats to avoid paying taxes on that money. Boy was i enlightened by the amount of information that was out there. It is never too late to start, financial planners can help also.

 

[Norm Paperman]

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.

A better idea..,don’t spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war that was not needed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BTW, most of us boomers are not exactly wealthy, y'know?

So then you see what it means when so many people are so much worse off.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Saw how well that went in Minnesota and the Somalis.....

"Saw how well that went in the other 49 states for 60 years."