General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen we get back into power, we're coming for the wealthy. But, how do we define the "wealthy?"
This one question, I believe, is going to define more than any other whether Democrats merely temporarily regain the levers of power in Washington or are able to present the American people with a lasting deal they trust for decades - not unlike the New Deal that resulted in Democrats controlling Congress from the early 1930s all the way until the dawn of Ronald Reagan. In order to do this though, we need to have a defined target. Because, if we start infighting over this issue, we're never going to get to the real root of the problem.
Increased taxes - both income and wealth - on billionaires? That's a no brainer. The statistics paint a scathing picture of the degree to which wealth distribution in the US has gotten completely out of control. Currently, the top 1% of US households hold a record 31.7% of the nation's wealth (up from 22.8% in 1990). More disturbing, the top 1% own nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined. In total, the top 1% hold a record $52 trillion to $55.8 trillion in wealth - enough to pay off the entire US national debt with another $13 to $16 trillion to spare.
So, the top 1% should clearly be a target of change in policy. What about the top 10% though? In order to fall into the top 10% of US households in terms of wealth, you need to possess at least $1.8 million to $2 million in wealth. For most Americans falling into this category, the vast majority of their wealth is held in home equity and/or retirement investment portfolios. Are these households really all that "wealthy" though, especially given the rapid rise in inflation, particularly home prices? Should these folks also be a target of policy change?
At present, as a party, we Democrats have yet to clearly address what it means to be "wealthy" in America. The Van Hollen/STEP Act proposed in 2021 by Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen and joined by Senators Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren listed as one its suggestions for tax reform the taxing of inherited wealth in excess of $1 million. A low bar for sure. But, also an indicator that we may be losing sight of the real culprit in our broken economy and broken wealth distribution.
The wealth in the US is there, amassed and stalled in the hands of the few, just waiting to be taken back by the people - much to the horror of the truly wealthy - but only if we as a party can first decide whether we want to hunt apex predators or waste our time hunting small game.

ck4829
(37,942 posts)Cirsium
(3,983 posts)This is not as difficult as many make it out to be.
Bettie
(19,782 posts)is all in investments/stock holdings and they live on loans, from one year to another, without ever having any official income.
So, they pay practically nothing and own....everything.
bucolic_frolic
(55,421 posts)Problem solved.
Go big. Tax them and create a sovereign wealth fund, for the benefit of all, like they do in some European companies. The masses have funded the wealthy by buying their products. Shouldn't there be some sharing of the largess?
I sold books online in 1999. I didn't make my own Amazon.
BTW, were tariffs designed to cuff Amazon's import competition? AliExpress, eBay, not importing much to the US these days I think.
PeaceWave
(3,615 posts)treating the act of relinquishing US citizenship in an attempt to avoid US taxation the same way that we treat death, triggering payment of an estate tax?
Bluetus
(2,939 posts)The exact limits can always be negotiated, but if there is a wealth tax, I think $50million per household would be a sensible entry point at a modest level and accelerating sharply above the billion dollar mark. A 2% net worth tax above a billion dollars makes good sense. IOW, a person with $1bn in net worth would pay $20M every year and would never miss any of it. If they did decline below $1Bn in net worth, then their share would go down, so none of them would ever feel any pain.
As far as income tax, put it back where it was in 1960 when our middle class was healthy. A high top marginal rate ENCOURAGES investment because investments in your business and work force are deductible. The top bracket in 1960 was 91%. Nobody ever paid that because they did reinvest in their businesses and work force. But a few people did pay 50-60% and that's fine. Keep in mind they only pay that high rate on the topmost part of their income. Even a person reaching the 91% bracket is probably paying only a 50% effective rate.
And let's stop playing pillow fights about Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Remove all the caps on that. A billionaire should pay the full rate just like everybody else. And that will EASILY fund Medicare for all and keep Social Security solvent through the end of this century.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)Every year you value all your assets and pay X% of that number.
Easy.
the problem is... wealthy folks own LOTS of politicians.
The Revolution
(903 posts)But is your home an asset? You could have a fairly standard income, buy a house, then have the value of that house increase drastically. Should you pay a wealth tax on that?
We could have an exception for primary homes, but having exceptions is what starts making things more complicated, possibly creating loopholes that can be exploited.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)Bluetus
(2,939 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2026, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Lots of doctors, other professionals, and successful business people have that and more. I don't envy them, and I congratulate them for their achievement.. These are not the ones corrupting our political system. They are not the ones rigging our elections and our markets. If a wealth tax kicked in at $10M, it should be a very low rate and only on the wealth above $10M
There are about 1000 Americans with net worth of $1B or more and that is a total wealth about $7 trillion.
We ABSOLUTELY should be taxing that wealth at least 2% per year. That would provide $140 billion, which could fix a lot of problems in our system. And these assholes would never miss any of that,
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)At a certain level of wealth they must pay it forward for the benefits the system gave THEM to get where they are.
140B is nothing. My plan produces 840B a year.
Bluetus
(2,939 posts)Candidates who boldly propose ideas like this will win a strong following. Americans instinctively understand we are being screwed by the extreme concentration of wealth in our society. No human needs that kind of wealth. For them, money is a measure of the love they never received in their lives. Let's give them gold stars and a pat on the head, but they don't need to hoard billions of dollars while so many suffer for no good reason.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)-misanthroptimist
(1,674 posts)ret5hd
(22,520 posts)til the needs of the many are satisfied.
leftstreet
(41,056 posts)Ask Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump
They all seem to have a "formula" for knowing how to give tax cuts to the rich
Maybe when the Ds have power they can RESCIND some of those?
Problem solved
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,480 posts)1 in 6 Americans are millionaires in net worth, mostly locked up in real estate and retirement accounts. Few consider themselves wealthy.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)Maybe a small 0.3% tax... write down all assets on single form and it's $10M... x 0.3% = $30,000 annually
Maybe 0.5% at 25m, .75% at 50m, 1% at 100m... 2% at 250m and 3% over 1B
according to Gemini... my plan would generate $840B a year. More than the DOD budget
PeaceWave
(3,615 posts)Some years the farm makes money. Some years it doesn't. Small farms often have a tenuous existence. Imposing a wealth tax may well push them over the edge of selling to some developer of McMansions. When you factor in the externalities, the community as a whole ends up worse off than before the wealth tax was imposed.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)PeaceWave
(3,615 posts)tinrobot
(12,092 posts)That's a pretty big loophole.
WarGamer
(18,733 posts)dpibel
(3,988 posts)You think a farm with a value of $10 million is a small farm?
You're hilarious.
Also, please point me to anywhere in the US where a single farm feeds a community. You're about 150 years behind times on that one.
Iggo
(49,973 posts)thucythucy
(9,112 posts)We had a much higher tax rate for the uber wealthy then--and a much stronger middle class.
haele
(15,462 posts)That does not also provide a tangible income or other asset, financial or tangible to someone else or to a business that creates a product -
Tax buy-back shares, but not any excess revenue that's pumped back into the business or given to all employees as some form of shares or benefit payments (bonus, additional payments into a Roth IRA that's added to the company 401Ks, ect...).
Maybe there should be a "hoard" tax. If you're able to use it for a loan collateral, it can be taxed.
demmiblue
(39,828 posts)flvegan
(66,370 posts)That's not "wealth" in comparison. Killing generational "wealth" is a terrible idea at that low level.
Oh, and let me know when these folks bar the rights of congress to trade/speculate securities.
JT45242
(4,064 posts)I was a school teacher for 20 years. I rolled that pension onto a 503b when I joined a non profit.
I have lived frugally and will hopefully end with between 1-1.5 million when wife and I die if we don't require long term nursing care.
Giving about 20 percent to a variety of charities. The rest is split between our two kids. If it was taxed heavily would not be fair relative to how we lived.
But if I had climbed the corporate ladder and had $5 million, that should be taxed at some decent rate. Especially since most of it was put in as tax deferred money into retirement accounts or the equity build up in the house.
PeaceWave
(3,615 posts)There are millions of folks in your exact position. And, including them (and you) as targets of future tax reform would - i believe - be wrong.
JT45242
(4,064 posts)First, social security it should be everyone, all income. The donut plan of $400 k is acceptable.
For income taxes... Increase tax over $400k to much higher percentage and escalate as well.
For the wealth tax, even if you take the top 10 percent or 5 percent makes sense to me.
Hit anyone over $500 million hard. If you want to wait until it's billionaires for messaging for harsh wealth tax, that is ok as well.
ZDU
(1,297 posts)... homes do they need?
... rental properties, Airbnb, etc. do they own?
... how much do they receive from royalties?
... earned income?
.... millions per second do they make?
Shall I continue?
DenaliDemocrat
(1,788 posts)I invested the max into my 401K for 30 years. That money needs to last me 25-30 years. Its my retirement fund. Im not wealthy. I saved as I was told to do since our pensions were severely reduced.