A wealth tax is not an obviously great idea. It’s worth having a better public debate on that topic.
For example: https://nypost.com/2026/02/01/us-news/stunning-number-of-cal...
The biggest example of this in the US is the health system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes than other countries. There is a huge and growing gap in the us between ultra wealthy and the rest of the population and it is a virtuous circle for the ultra wealthy with their ability to spend unlimited in politics.
I don't know if you don't find this absurd, but a bunch of pedophile protecting people have shaped the actual presidency and are continuing to do so. Feeling slightly annoyed is the least offensive way I could put it
Edit and I'm not referring to prostitution, you know this as well
I would love to see that discussed
The goal of a borrowing tax would be to prevent someone with a a $200 mil stock portfolio living off the "buy, borrow, die" strategy and not home equity loans on mere middle class millionaires.
Capital gains, for example, on a primary residence already have an exclusion of a certain amount. There's no reason a borrowing tax can't kick in only after one has let's say 10mil in assets or securities.
Heck, you could even exempt primary residences regardless of value, so you should be fine
edit: here's an explanation of the buy, borrow, die strategy for those who are interested https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26...
Why do you think that?
The ultra-rich are taking too great a share of every nations wealth. And they keep taking more.
Taxes are the only option to redistribute wealth.
Or are you talking about enabling strong unions and anti-monopoly laws with teeth to reverse the growth?
As I doubt Garry's in favour of that either.
One reason a wealth tax is controversial and less precedented is that it taxes unrealized gains.
Another alternative would be to raise taxes on high income rather than wealth. In the 1950s people were taxed at something like 90% for every dollar over $400,000. We could go back to something like that but adjust that $400,000 to something like a couple of million, to match inflation.
This essentially puts a cap on wages. The money you make below the cap would be taxed at the same rates we pay today. Once you get above that amount, you keep most of what falls below, but the government would take almost all of what's above the cap.
I think if you do it that way you would also have to tax interest and capital gains similarly to wages. That's another loophole that's very commonly exploited in the last few decades, investment income gets taxed lower.
- government lobbying for tax codes and loopholes, made specifically to benefit them
- abuse of various systems like H1B's and even SNAP (e.g. Wal-Mart) to subsidize their lack of payment to american taxpayers
- extracting value from public research (funded by taxpayers) and creating private products for sale. Sometimes they may even try to patent such breakthroughs for themelves despite public invention
- engaging in dark patterns and anti-competitive, anti-union behavior to extract wealth in ways that would potentially be proven illegal... had they not paid off the judges
- Performing untold of, actually illegal grifts (cases like SBF are only the tip of the iceberg)
And at this rate we may have to throw in "abusing funds to protect against the most heinous criminals imaginable".
Need I go on? There's pratically no such thing as a billionaire who earned their net worth.
I'm voting for it if it passes. Big if, though. Almost like the 1% opposed have inordinate power in politics.