Woke Leftists May Eat the Rich, but It Still Won’t Save Us

Woke leftists hate the rich and everything they stand for. There is something about working hard, displaying fortitude in the face of adversity and using creativity and intellect to achieve exceptional financial gain that’s like chewing on glass for a leftist. They believe that no one should have more than the lowest member on the socio-economic ladder, regardless of whether that individual landed there because of their own personal deficits. If one person has more than another, the discrepancy can only be explained by exposing the privilege, skin color or exploitation of the poorer person. That is, unless you are a member of a protected group. Then you achieved success despite your obstacles.

That’s why there is a persistent belief in American politics that the nation’s fiscal problems can be solved simply by taxing and seizing more wealth from the rich. The logic is emotionally appealing to leftists on a variety of levels. A fundamental premise of their dogma states that the money the rich have accumulated was ill gotten and at the expense of the poor. While this is a discredited fallacy, it’s a non-negotiable reality for leftists. Seeing the wealthy suffer also has a particular sadistic appeal. So, they could take the money away from this despised group without a hint of conscience or remorse.

Take It all but It Still Won’t be Enough

It is essential for average Americans to recognize that fiscal reality is immune to loathing based on emotions. That’s why even under the most extreme imaginable scenario, where the government confiscates 90 percent of the wealth of American billionaires and 50 percent of everyone worth $100 million or more, the United States would still face the same basic problem: We spend far more every year than we collect, and the leftist solution would barely move the national debt meter.

The numbers speak for themselves. The combined net worth of U.S. billionaires is roughly $5.7 trillion. Taking 90 percent of that yields about $5.1 trillion. Add an estimated $800 billion from confiscating half the wealth of centi-millionaires, and the total haul approaches $5.9 trillion. Certainly, that’s an extraordinary sum. Large enough to dominate headlines and inflame the blood lust of perma-seething leftists.

Still, when placed against the federal government’s structural deficit, it turns out to be surprisingly small. The U.S. government currently spends about $7 trillion per year while collecting roughly $5.2 trillion in revenue. The result is an annual deficit of around $1.8 trillion. To balance the budget through spending cuts alone would require an across-the-board reduction of roughly 26 percent. That figure shocks many people, which is precisely why the temptation to “soak the rich” is so strong. Surely trillions in confiscated wealth must materially change that outcome, right?

But here is the critical distinction that is so often misunderstood. Confiscated wealth is a one-time deluge of money, while the deficits are a recurring problem. Applying $5.9 trillion to the national debt does not eliminate the annual mismatch between spending and revenue. It only reduces future interest payments for a while.

Assuming a blended interest rate of roughly 4 percent on federal debt, a $5.9 trillion debt reduction would save about $236 billion per year in interest. That is meaningful, but it must be kept in perspective. Subtracting $236 billion from a $1.8 trillion deficit still leaves a shortfall of roughly $1.56 trillion every year. When that figure is measured against $7 trillion in annual spending, the across-the-board cut required to balance the budget only falls from 26 percent to about 22 percent.

That is the entire payoff from the most aggressive wealth confiscation proposal imaginable.

Even after taking nearly everything from the most successful and productive people in our society, who incidentally, earned every cent they have, the government would still be spending over one-fifth more than it collects. The fiscal hole is simply too large to be filled by one-time seizures, no matter how politically satisfying they may feel.

The Feel-Good Solution for the Left That Will Solve Nothing

This is where the debate often becomes unmoored from reality. Calls to tax the rich more heavily imply that doing so would eliminate the need for painful choices elsewhere. The numbers show the opposite. Even under fantastical assumptions, including perfect compliance, no capital flight, no economic contraction, and no constitutional obstacles, the effect on the structural deficit is marginal.

The hard decisions remain.

Worse still, confiscation distracts from the real driver of the crisis, which is the permanent growth of government obligations relative to the tax base. Entitlements, interest, and defense dominate federal spending. None of these categories meaningfully shrink just because the debt is paid down fractionally once. And without serious reform, they resume growing immediately.

There is also a deeper risk. Framing fiscal responsibility as a problem solvable by punishing a small minority encourages delay. It allows policymakers to avoid confronting voters with the truth that the government promises more than it can sustainably deliver. Greece followed a similar path, leaning on emergency measures and external funding while postponing structural reform. The result was not fairness, but collapse, and far harsher austerity imposed under crisis conditions.

Ironically, relying on wealth confiscation can accelerate the very confidence crisis it seeks to avoid. Markets care less about symbolic gestures than about credible long-term plans. One-time seizures do nothing to assure investors that deficits will not return the following year. If anything, they raise concerns about rule stability, capital security, and future policy unpredictability.

Perhaps most disturbing is the very real possibility that the money confiscated from the wealthy would probably not be used for debt reduction, anyway. One can only imagine the number of “victim” groups that would be lining up for their share of the take. The demand for assistance for disadvantaged groups would be deafening, and of course, so would be the accompanying fraud on a level that would make the $8 billion Somalia fraud scandal seem like child’s play.

The uncomfortable conclusion is this: America’s fiscal problem is not a rich-people problem. It is a spending problem. No amount of confiscation changes the basic math that a government spending $7 trillion must either raise $7 trillion or reduce spending to that level. Everything else is just noise.

Right now, the rich have the absolute worst deal in America. At one time, successful people were celebrated; now they are scorned and villainized. The wealthiest one percent of Americans pay approximately 40.4% of all federal income taxes but only earn 22.4% of all wages. Let’s face it, they are completely screwed, and what do they get for their generosity from the left? More vitriol that they’re not paying enough.

Even by soaking the rich with the most extreme solution possible, fiscal discipline is still not optional, and the burden can’t fall exclusively on the small minority of wealthy Americans. Arithmetic does not bend to fake-leftist outrage. If the United States wants to preserve confidence in the dollar, avoid inflationary finance, and maintain sovereignty over its economic future, it must confront spending directly. The sooner we accept that truth, the less painful the adjustment will be.