> I have created a list of the 61 richest Americans. Their combined net worth is $2.3T. Last year the feds spent $6.8T against revenue of $3.8T and a deficit of $3.0T. If the feds had successfully taken every penny from them they would still have run a deficit last year.
Why cut-off at the 61 richest, and not the 10,000 richest? It's also ridiculous to assume we either have to cover the entire deficit, or not tax them at all. This fallacy pops up throughout other parts as well, like here:
> These fortunes took decades to build and will take decades to replenish. So what happens if you tap it slowly with a 5% wealth tax? You raise 115B. This is not even 4% of the deficit.
115B is a ton of money. If directly distributed to the poorest 10 million Americans, that would more than double their income [1]. Comparing it to a huge figure like the deficit (which is artificially high due to war and COVID) is disingenious.
[1] https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen...
> Finally—I would like to point out that we already have a wealth tax. It is paid by most, not just the rich. And in many states and municipalities it does indeed approach Elizabeth Warren’s proposed 2%. It represents 12% of the taxes raised. We call it “property tax”.
This is precisely the problem. Property tax is not enough, and it is not progressive.
To be clear, taxing the rich is both an economic and a moral necessity. If we "deplete" the wealth of billionaires after a few years, then so be it. Only fools and billionaires should think this outcome is something to worry about.