What if we taxed the wealthiest Americans 2% above $10 million?
We don't live in an infinite-sum world. If they own everything, you own nothing.
That is Stevenson's core warning, and the US data backs it up. Wealth is not trickling down — it is concentrating at the top faster than at any point since the Fed began tracking it.
Who owns America's wealth
The top 1% now holds roughly the same wealth as the bottom 90% combined — the greatest concentration since the Fed began tracking it in 1989.
Stevenson's metrics for analysis are blunt and measurable:
- Ownership vs. labor. Modern economies reward owning assets (stocks, real estate) over working. Work income is taxed heavily; hoarded wealth grows tax-deferred. The portion of GDP going to workers just hit its lowest level since 1947 (53.8%).
- The Gini coefficient. The US sits near 0.85 — a level of inequality that, historically, has preceded social collapse. When France hit 0.83, "they started separating people from their heads."
- "Buy, borrow, die." The wealthy never sell assets (no capital gains tax), borrow against them for living expenses (no income tax), and pass them on with a step-up in basis at death (no estate tax). Their effective tax rate is ~0.3% of wealth — lower than a nurse's.
- Your kids will be poorer than you. For the first time in modern history, outcomes are tied to inheritance, not labor. If a child doesn't inherit close to $1 million, they face falling living standards.
This is not an accident. It is the result of intentional policy choices — tax cuts at the top, underfunded enforcement, and loopholes written for the wealthy. The 2025 tax act alone cut the top 0.1%'s tax bill by an estimated $311,000 per household in 2027 while raising taxes on the lowest earners.
A former trader who saw the rigging from the inside
Stevenson was one of the most profitable interest-rate traders at Citibank — the guy on the other side of the trade. He walked away and now runs Gary's Economics, teaching people how the economy actually works.
His argument is not moral outrage; it is arithmetic. Wealth grows by compound interest. In a low-growth economy, if you don't tax wealth, concentration is a mathematical certainty. The top 0.1%'s real wealth has grown at ~5.3% a year for decades — roughly double the average. A $300 billion fortune generates ~$15 billion in new wealth every year at a conservative 5% return. Untaxed, that gap only widens.
His proposed fix is deliberately simple and deliberately narrow: a 2% annual tax on net worth above a high threshold — £10 million in the UK. It excludes the entire 99% and concentrates the fight on a small, well-defined group. He calls it "watertight": no exemptions, enforced across borders, funding public investment in housing, healthcare, and social services.
"People need to understand that we do not live in an infinite sum world and you cannot have a group of people who own everything unless you and your group of people own nothing."
— Gary Stevenson, on The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway
Mapped to the US, the threshold becomes $10 million — the top 0.3% of households. This is the same structure economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have scored for the US, and the same structure Zucman took to the G20.
2% on wealth above $10 million. That's it.
No new tax on workers. No tax on the middle class. A 2% annual levy on the net worth above $10 million — the first $10 million is untouched.
Who pays, and how much
| Net worth | Taxable above $10M | Annual tax (2%) |
|---|---|---|
| $10 million | $0 | $0 |
| $20 million | $10M | $200,000 |
| $50 million | $40M | $800,000 |
| $100 million | $90M | $1.8M |
| $1 billion | $990M | $19.8M |
| $100 billion | $99.99B | $2.0B |
Only ~300,000 households — 0.3% of the country — would pay anything at all. 99.7% of Americans would never file a dollar of this tax.
How is it enforced? The same way the US already taxes multinationals: international cooperation. Zucman's G20 blueprint shows a 2% minimum tax on billionaires is technically feasible, enforceable even if some countries refuse (via exit taxes and a "tax collector of last resort"), and would raise $200–250 billion globally from ~3,000 people. Extending it to $100 million+ adds another $100–140 billion. The US share is the largest in the world.
And a wealth tax has a hidden benefit: it forces the wealthy to report their wealth. Today the IRS cannot even see most of it. The tax generates the data needed to enforce itself.
What $576 billion a year actually buys
Here is the full accounting — revenue raised, compared against every program the question asks about.
Revenue vs. the needs
Social Security
The Social Security trust funds are projected to run out in 2034 (OASI alone in 2033). At depletion, continuing income covers only 81% of scheduled benefits — an automatic ~19% cut for every retiree. The 75-year unfunded obligation is $25.1 trillion (present value).
The annual shortfall is roughly $200 billion and growing. The wealth tax raises $576 billion a year — 3× the annual gap. A dedicated share of the wealth tax fully closes Social Security's shortfall, permanently, without cutting a single benefit or raising the retirement age.
Social Security: fully funded by a fraction of the wealth tax. No benefit cuts. No retirement-age hikes.
Medicare
The Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund depletes in 2033, when income covers only 89% of costs. The annual HI shortfall is roughly $75 billion. The wealth tax covers it 8× over.
Medicare Hospital Insurance: trivially solvent with a small slice of wealth-tax revenue.
Medicare for All
This is the honest answer: the wealth tax alone does not fully pay for Medicare for All. The CBO estimates single-payer raises federal health subsidies by $1.5–3.0 trillion in 2030; the AAF/H&E model puts the net federal cost near $2.3 trillion a year.
The wealth tax covers ~25% of that. But that is the wrong comparison. The money for M4A already exists in the system — RAND found total national health spending rises only 1.8% under M4A. The cost is not new money; it is moving $2 trillion of private premiums, employer contributions, and out-of-pocket costs onto the federal ledger. Combined with the existing $1.75 trillion payroll tax and $1.09 trillion in current federal health spending, the wealth tax closes the gap and makes M4A financially feasible — while eliminating premiums, deductibles, and copays for every American.
Medicare for All: not fully paid by the wealth tax alone, but the wealth tax is the missing piece that makes it feasible — and the total cost barely rises because the money already exists.
The national debt
Total federal debt is $37.6 trillion; debt held by the public is $30.3 trillion (99% of GDP). The government pays $1.2 trillion a year in interest — now the fastest-growing line item in the budget. The annual deficit is $1.8 trillion.
The wealth tax does not pay off the debt. But it eliminates 32% of the annual deficit, stops the debt from growing as fast, and frees $576 billion a year to service the interest bill and fund programs instead of borrowing. Over 10 years it raises $5.76 trillion — a meaningful dent in a $37.6 trillion mountain, and a decisive stop to the bleeding.
The debt: not erased, but the wealth tax cuts the deficit by a third and frees half a trillion a year to pay interest instead of borrowing more.
The full ledger
| Item | Amount | Wealth tax covers |
|---|---|---|
| Wealth tax revenue (2% > $10M) | $576B / yr | — |
| Current federal revenue (FY2025) | $5.2T | 11% |
| Annual federal deficit | $1.8T | 32% |
| Social Security annual gap | ~$200B | 3× |
| Medicare HI annual gap | ~$75B | 8× |
| Medicare for All net cost (AAF) | $2.3T | 25% |
| Annual interest on the debt | $1.2T | 48% |
| Total federal debt | $37.6T | 10-yr: $5.76T |
Revenue estimate: 2% × ~$28.8 trillion of household wealth above $10M, derived from the Saez–Zucman method (base above $50M ≈ 10% of total household net worth) scaled to the $10M threshold via the Pareto distribution of top wealth. See Sources & Method.
The six lies the wealthy tell to keep their wealth
Every serious proposal to tax wealth is met with the same script. Here is what they say, and the arithmetic that shows it is a lie.
The lie: Tax the rich and they'll move to Dubai, taking their money and jobs with them.
The truth: The US taxes citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live — you cannot escape by moving. And the G20 blueprint shows exit taxes and a "tax collector of last resort" make evasion fail even for those who try. The wealthiest Americans' fortunes are tied to US markets, US courts, and US infrastructure. They are not leaving; they are threatening to.
The lie: Taxing wealth destroys investment and growth.
The truth: The wealth being taxed is not being invested in the real economy — it is sitting in stocks, real estate, and offshore accounts, growing by compound interest. The top 0.1%'s wealth has grown ~5.3% a year for decades while workers' share of GDP hit a 75-year low. Taxing hoarded wealth and spending it on Social Security, healthcare, and infrastructure puts money into the hands of people who actually spend it — which is what drives demand and growth.
The lie: You can't measure a billionaire's net worth, so a wealth tax can't work.
The truth: The IRS already values estates, the Fed already measures household wealth, and Forbes already values billionaires. The real problem is that the wealthy hide their wealth — and a wealth tax forces them to report it, generating the data needed to enforce itself. Zucman's G20 report shows the valuation and enforcement machinery already exists. The objection is not technical; it is political.
The lie: A wealth tax will eventually reach ordinary families.
The truth: The threshold is $10 million — the top 0.3% of households. The first $10 million is exempt. 99.7% of Americans would never pay a dollar. This is the opposite of a middle-class tax; it is the most targeted tax in American history. The people making this argument are the ones who would pay it.
The lie: The rich pay the most taxes already.
The truth: Billionaires pay an effective tax rate of ~0.3% of their wealth — lower than a nurse or a teacher. Because of "buy, borrow, die," their income is engineered to be near zero on paper while their wealth compounds tax-free. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay a higher effective rate on what they earn. The rich do not pay their fair share; they pay the least.
The lie: A 2% wealth tax is a slippery slope to confiscating everything.
The truth: A 2% tax on wealth above $10 million leaves a $100 billion fortune growing by billions every year. It is not confiscation; it is a modest brake on concentration. The real confiscation is the one already happening in reverse — the upward transfer of wealth from workers to owners that has been running for four decades.
Every one of these arguments is a defense of the status quo by the people who benefit from it. None of them survives contact with the arithmetic.
Why this is not just fair — it is necessary
- Concentration is a mathematical certainty without intervention. Wealth compounds; in a low-growth economy, untaxed wealth concentrates by definition. The US is at a Gini near 0.85 — historically a pre-collapse level.
- The programs Americans depend on are running out of money. Social Security depletes in 2034, Medicare HI in 2033. The wealth tax funds both, permanently, from 0.3% of households.
- The money exists. $576 billion a year is 11% of federal revenue, raised from people who currently pay ~0.3% of their wealth in tax. It is not a new burden on the economy; it is collecting what is already owed.
- It is enforceable. The G20 blueprint proves it. Exit taxes, international cooperation, and a tax collector of last resort make evasion fail.
- The alternative is worse. Untaxed concentration leads to social instability, falling living standards, and — as Stevenson warns — a return to a feudal age where a few own everything and everyone else owns nothing. The cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of the tax.
This is not a left-wing or right-wing position. It is a citizen's arithmetic position: the wealthiest 0.3% of Americans hold more than the bottom 90%, pay the lowest effective tax rate, and their untaxed wealth is bankrupting the programs everyone else depends on. Taxing it 2% above $10 million funds Social Security, makes Medicare solvent, makes Medicare for All feasible, and stops the debt from growing.
This only changes if enough of us demand it.
The wealthy fund the think tanks, the ads, and the politicians who repeat the six lies. The arithmetic is on our side. Here is how you make it heard.
Learn the numbers
Share this article. The single most powerful thing you can do is make the arithmetic impossible to ignore.
Demand it from candidates
Ask every candidate, at every level: "Will you support a 2% wealth tax above $10 million?" Record the answer.
Call your representatives
Tell them Social Security and Medicare are running out and the wealth tax is the answer. It takes five minutes.
This is an independent citizen's article from the Loop Farmstead node. It is not affiliated with Gary Stevenson, Gary's Economics, or any political party. Figures are estimates from public data; see Sources & Method.
Where the numbers come from
- Federal Reserve, Distributional Financial Accounts (DFA) — total household net worth ~$180T (Q3 2025); top 1% ~32% of wealth; top 0.1% ~14.5%.
- Saez & Zucman, "Wealth Tax Revenue Estimates" (Feb 2021) — 2% above $50M + 1% above $1B raises ~$250B/yr, ~$3.0T/10yr; base above $50M ≈ 10% of total household net worth.
- Zucman, G20 report (2024) — 2% minimum tax on global billionaires raises $200–250B/yr; extending to $100M+ adds $100–140B/yr; billionaire effective tax rate ~0.3% of wealth.
- Congressional Budget Office, FY2025 Revenues — total revenue $5.2T; individual income $2.66T; payroll $1.75T; corporate $452B; outlays $7.0T.
- Social Security Trustees, 2025 Report — OASDI depletes 2034, OASI 2033; 81% of benefits payable at depletion; 75-yr unfunded obligation $25.1T.
- Medicare Trustees, 2025 Report — HI trust fund depletes 2033; 89% of costs covered at depletion.
- U.S. Treasury / GAO, FY2025 — total federal debt $37.6T; debt held by public $30.3T (99% of GDP); interest $1.2T/yr; deficit $1.8T/yr.
- CBO, single-payer analysis — federal health subsidies $1.5–3.0T higher in 2030 under single-payer.
- American Action Forum / H&E — M4A net federal cost ~$2.3T/yr (2028), ~$24T over 8 years.
- RAND, National Health Spending Under Medicare for All — total NHE rises only 1.8% (supply-constrained); federal spending +221%.
- Gary Stevenson, "The Trading Game" and Gary's Economics; The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway (2025).
Method note: The $576B/yr estimate is derived by scaling the Saez–Zucman finding that the wealth base above $50M equals ~10% of total household net worth (~$18T of today's $180T), then scaling to the $10M threshold using the Pareto distribution of top wealth (base above $10M ≈ 1.6× base above $50M ≈ $28.8T), and applying the 2% rate. This is consistent with Saez–Zucman's $219B/yr at the $50M threshold. The estimate assumes a comprehensive base with no major exemptions and some avoidance; real-world revenue would vary with enforcement and design.