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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So we don't need to borrow and add to the $39T debt.

With a GDP of $30 trillion, we definitely should not have to borrow, even without touching spending. Our tax to GDP % is pathetic and not indicative of a country that understands it is so in debt.

 

[Nostra]

Actually the Debt went down $453b:

Economic policy of the Clinton administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years since 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001."

Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.

Nope. Went up every year.

1994 $4,693 Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974
1996 $5,225 Welfare reform
1997 $5,413
1998 $5,526 Long-Term Capital Management crisis; recession
1999 $5,656 Glass-Steagall Act repealed
2000 $5,674 Budget surplus
2001 $5,807 9/11 attacks; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2002 $6,228 War on Terror

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt is the total of what the federal government owes creditors. The U.S. has always carried debt, but the total has expanded rapidly since 2008.

www.investopedia.com

 

[kyzr]

Nope. Went up every year.

1994 $4,693 Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974
1996 $5,225 Welfare reform
1997 $5,413
1998 $5,526 Long-Term Capital Management crisis; recession
1999 $5,656 Glass-Steagall Act repealed
2000 $5,674 Budget surplus
2001 $5,807 9/11 attacks; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2002 $6,228 War on Terror

Imagine the Debt being so small again instead of $39T. Those were the "good old days".

 

[Nostra]

Imagine the Debt being so small again instead of $39T. Those were the "good old days".

Is that your way of admitting you lied?

 

[kyzr]

Is that your way of admitting you lied?

My link in post #420 said $453b was paid down, your link shows otherwise.
Either way, history books say there was a surplus. Not worth arguing over.

 

[Nostra]

My link in post #420 said $453b was paid down, your link shows otherwise.
Either way, history books say there was a surplus. Not worth arguing over.

You don’t want to argue the point because you are arguing a lie.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yes, but the rich etc don't pay their fair share, that is the way life works in America and in much of the world. 'Money talks...'

How the Richest People in America Avoid Paying Taxes

A clever new paper puts concrete numbers to the taxes paid by members of the Forbes 400.

www.theatlantic.com

That stupid trope is so worn out it's funny.

Until Congress gets it's act together, and stops spending, you can forget any support.

Why would you give them more money (in the form of less debt) that would entice them to spend more.

Simply stupid.
Simply stupid.
Simply stupid.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Nope. Went up every year.

1994 $4,693 Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974
1996 $5,225 Welfare reform
1997 $5,413
1998 $5,526 Long-Term Capital Management crisis; recession
1999 $5,656 Glass-Steagall Act repealed
2000 $5,674 Budget surplus
2001 $5,807 9/11 attacks; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2002 $6,228 War on Terror

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt is the total of what the federal government owes creditors. The U.S. has always carried debt, but the total has expanded rapidly since 2008.

www.investopedia.com

Depends on who you listen too Different people publish different numbers. Most think tanks will say that Clinton was balanced. Some folks use different methods to calculate the deficit (which adds to the debt).

Regardless.....Clinton's last three years had a very small deficit. And the CBO projected (at the time) that we were on a path to paying the debt to zero.

Then GWB came along......

 

[Nostra]

Depends on who you listen too Different people publish different numbers. Most think tanks will say that Clinton was balanced. Some folks use different methods to calculate the deficit (which adds to the debt).

Regardless.....Clinton's last three years had a very small deficit. And the CBO projected (at the time) that we were on a path to paying the debt to zero.

Then GWB came along......

We were not on a path to pay off the debt. That just shows what a joke CBO guesses are.

 

[HikerGuy83]

We were not on a path to pay off the debt. That just shows what a joke CBO guesses are.

And what is your counterclaim to the CBO's projections.

The deficit had been reducing and was almost zero. Even your post had one year that claimed budget surplus (as I said....many said that was the case for 3 years). The economy was doing well.

Then GWB came along ("Deficits don't matter).

His last year, he handed Obama an excuse to send our debt into orbit.

 

[Nostra]

And what is your counterclaim to the CBO's projections.

Reality.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Reality.

The reality was GWB and Obama.

No fiscal disciple at all.

The CBO projections are based, in part, on a continuation of certain things.

Bush's super stupid war on terror threw all that out the window.

 

[Nostra]

The reality was GWB and Obama.

No fiscal disciple at all.

The CBO projections are based, in part, on a continuation of certain things.

Bush's super stupid war on terror threw all that out the window.

CBO guesses always assume nothing will change. That's why their projections are always shit, and have never been right.

Don't get me wrong, I have always advocated for a balanced budget. What they called a surplus wasn't a surplus since the debt went up every year.

 

[Stann]

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.

I don't have as much faith as you do. Politicians will find a way around it and recreate the debt. I like getting rid of the debt but keeping US debt free is a problem. And youcanbet that tax would increase and ever go away. They'd find some excuse to extend it forever.

 

[DGS49]

as many have said in the past, "we" have mainly a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

I would go along with a surtax or a wealth tax, but it would have to include an unavoidable spending reduction. Unavoidable. No bullshit. A percent or two a year in perpetuity.

And as I have pointed out a thousand times in this forum, most of Congress' discretionary spending is unConstitutional. Congress has NO POWER under Article I or anyplace else to spend tax dollars on housing, food, healthcare, education, monthly stipends (welfare), or saving the ******* planet.

And for those of you who point to "general welfare," do a little research. That DOES NOT mean that Congress has the power to spend on anything it seems beneficial to the general welfare. If it did, there would have been no reason to list seventeen specific things that it could spend money on.

 

[22lcidw]

Depends on who you listen too Different people publish different numbers. Most think tanks will say that Clinton was balanced. Some folks use different methods to calculate the deficit (which adds to the debt).

Regardless.....Clinton's last three years had a very small deficit. And the CBO projected (at the time) that we were on a path to paying the debt to zero.

Then GWB came along......

Not true.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we need a lot more revenue.

We need to cut spending.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

as many have said in the past, "we" have mainly a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

I would go along with a surtax or a wealth tax, but it would have to include an unavoidable spending reduction. Unavoidable. No bullshit. A percent or two a year in perpetuity.

And as I have pointed out a thousand times in this forum, most of Congress' discretionary spending is unConstitutional. Congress has NO POWER under Article I or anyplace else to spend tax dollars on housing, food, healthcare, education, monthly stipends (welfare), or saving the ******* planet.

And for those of you who point to "general welfare," do a little research. That DOES NOT mean that Congress has the power to spend on anything it seems beneficial to the general welfare. If it did, there would have been no reason to list seventeen specific things that it could spend money on.

So you never heard of the " necessary and proper clause"? I thought you were a lawyer and yet you dont know the Constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

We do have a revenue problem. A national living wage would create additional revenue from people who were unable to pay taxes and reduce the need for government assistance. We were not running in the black before COVID, and every time a Democrat fixes the mess a Republican made, people vote in a Republican majority and administration that messes things up again.

Please point to any administration since Calvin Coolidge that has lowered debt from when they entered office and when they left office. I’ll give you a hint the first letter is z.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

No, that will punish others for the failure of the government on how it spent tax dollars to rack up trillions in debt. Since the debt started to increase decades ago, invoice every politician from then on with a pro rata cost. Once they've all gone bankrupt and lost their assets, only then go to the public cap in hand for any shortfall. A percentage of the debt made them millionaires.