US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5899

On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.

I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.

The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.

In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.

Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.

Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%

Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.

Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).

To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).

Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.

If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.

On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.