Poverty, income volatility, job instability, and lack of social mobility are real problems in the US. While many Americans still manage to climb the socioeconomic ladder to achieve a decent version of the American Dream, some get stuck on the lower rungs. They need help. In previous posts (here, here, here, here, here, and here), I proposed an Adult Student Basic Income (ASBI) that would effectively address these societal ills without bankrupting the US government. However, earlier versions of the ABSI relied on new taxes that I no longer consider politically feasible or financially prudent. So I’ve made some changes to reduce the tax burden and increase the ASBI’s appeal to the American public and business community.
But a lot of people don’t have the time or money for periodic classes or training programs. That’s not just a problem for them but a problem for the overall economy. Because a better-educated and trained workforce is more productive, efficient, and capable of technological innovation - key factors of economic growth.
What’s up with Republicans? Don’t they care enough to worry much about important national issues? Maybe. It may also be that Republicans are simply optimistic that the problems listed in the survey can be fixed, or at least managed better, when Republicans are in charge. Which they are. Another possibility is that Gallup didn’t include issues in their survey that Republicans do worry a lot about
The median age of first-time homebuyers in the US has been rising for decades, from around 28 in the late 1980s to a record high of 40 in late 2025. This is a problem, because many Americans build wealth using home equity—the difference between a home's market value and its remaining mortgage balance—by leveraging it for debt consolidation or investments such as buying rental property, starting a business, or even going back to college to qualify for better jobs.
Given the centrality of financial assets to the age-wealth gap, I created two charts for this post: one, the percent of household wealth attributable to financial assets, by age-group; and two, the average annual rate of return on financial assets over the period of 1983-2022, compared to other types of assets
The chart in the first post of this series showed the growing age-wealth gap over the period of 1983-2022. The following chart reveals a diverging homeownership rate for three age-groups over the same period:
In this series of posts, I’ll present charts that document Wolff’s main points: the age-wealth gap has been growing for decades and is huge; and differences in homeownership, stock holdings, and mortgage debt are the three main factors behind this age-related shift in relative wealth. The charts are my own creation, based on Wolff’s computations and tables.
Just by glancing at these charts, it would appear that Democrats found Republicans way more problematic than vice versa. And that impression would be correct. To put a number on it, Democrats were three times as likely to see a major problem with the members of the other party than Republicans were. So why are Democrats so strongly and uniformly critical of Republicans about so many different issues? Hard to say without more information but I have some ideas…
So, what’s up with these partisan differences? Hard to say without more information. But I can always speculate! Here goes…
Innovation is a primary driver of GDP growth, acting as an engine that increases productivity, creates new markets, and enhances efficiency. By applying new ideas and technologies, economies produce more goods and services with the same inputs, leading to higher wages, business profitability, and sustained economic expansion.
Alternative sources of investment mostly provide complementary and early-stage funding for start-ups. They certainly have a place but cannot entirely replace super-rich investors due to differences in flexibility, risk tolerance, scale, speed, priorities, time horizon, personal commitment and mentorship.
In contrast to institutional investors, the super-rich are well-positioned to take on the higher risks of young companies, provide patient funding for longer time horizons and offer hands-on guidance to foster innovation. And to quote AI: “Innovation is a primary driver of GDP growth, acting as an engine that increases productivity, creates new markets, and enhances efficiency.”
The economic benefits of high-net-worth individuals ("super-rich") investing in startups rather than ordinary people—typically via angel investing or venture capital—derive primarily from their ability to provide "patient capital" and absorb high risks without immediate pressure for returns.
Compared to other investors, the super-rich are more risk-tolerant, hands-on, and willing to make long-term commitments. They often favor private equity over public stocks and allocate more capital to illiquid investments.
If the super-rich sold large amounts of stock for a wealth tax, the shares would likely be absorbed by institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds), sovereign wealth funds, corporate share buyback programs, and the broader, high-net-worth market.
A 5% wealth tax requiring billionaires to liquidate assets would likely force significant, consistent sell-offs of company stock, potentially diluting founder control, depressing share prices, and discouraging long-term, high-risk investments.
I’m ultimately interested in how a billionaire wealth tax would impact the US economy and American people. To answer that question, even tentatively, requires answering a lot of other questions.
Wealth is the sum of all tangible and intangible assets, minus liabilities and debt. Assets are specific items of value one owns that can be converted into a measurable medium of exchange, which I’ll just call “cash”. You need to convert assets into cash to pay taxes. Uncle Sam doesn’t accept yachts in lieu of cold, hard cash (speaking metaphorically of course; checks and electronic transfers are always welcome).
Well, that’s it for healthcare reform. I really think the U.S. can have its cake and eat it too. In other words, we can have universal healthcare and eventually reduce healthcare spending in the process. Check out Parts I-VIII of this series for details.
Yes, insurers do contribute to the high cost of healthcare in the U.S., mostly by increasing the administrative burden of providers, e.g., time and staff needed for care authorization and payment. However, this administrative burden serves a purpose: to reduce unnecessary spending associated with healthcare fraud and low-value care, an estimated $300 billion per year for fraud and $340 billion a year for low-value care. I’m sure there are ways to lessen the burden, perhaps by standardizing forms, requirements and procedures across insurers. But administrative reform isn’t going to put a big dent in U.S. healthcare spending, because it already plays a relatively small role in overall spending.