The greedy government never has enough revenue

A significant number of journalists and other Democrats are jumping on the wealth tax bandwagon because they say the rich don't pay their fair share and that the tax code is not progressive enough. 

The top 20% of earners paid 87% of income taxes even though they only earned 52% of the nations' income. How much more progressive would you want it to be? It appears that journalists, along with most Democrats, want the richest counties in the United States (which are around DC where they produce nothing) to get richer while holding down the opportunities for those throughout the rest of the country, especially the poor and middle class (who you pretend to care about).

Most of the richest 20% today did move up the economic ladder. They did not inherit the money but somehow, even if they did, Democrats think they are entitled to a greater and greater share of what other people earn. 

To Democrats, the problem is the government never has enough revenue even though it collects a record amount. There is always something new to tax, and today, it is wealth or marijuana or gambling or just raising rates on the "rich" without acknowledging that taking more money out of the private sector slows growth. They never seem to suggest that government can live with less. 

In FY 2009 the government collected $2.1 Trillion. In FY 2017 it collected $3.32 Trillion and it continues to grow. That is up around 60% in eight years. Have individuals received a 60% raise in eight years. I don't think so, but Democrats want more for the government. 

Catherine Rampell: Warren wasn’t the first candidate to propose a wealth tax. Trump was.

Congress has slashed taxes overall, but especially on the rich; reduced or eliminated brackets that applied only to the tippy-top income percentiles, making the tax code less progressive at the top; neutered the estate tax; cut rates on long-term capital gains; added "Inception"-like loopholes within loopholes, which disproportionately benefit taxpayers with the sophistication and resources to game the system; and gutted the Internal Revenue Service, which catches these tax dodgers. 

All of these deliberate choices helped the richest households to accumulate more wealth and make that wealth more persistent across generations.

They have also contributed to the government's growing revenue shortfall. If you want to patch deficits, go where the money is — increasingly, at the very top.

We should think of a wealth tax as a way to correct the mistakes of the past. 

A significant number of journalists and other Democrats are jumping on the wealth tax bandwagon because they say the rich don't pay their fair share and that the tax code is not progressive enough. 

The top 20% of earners paid 87% of income taxes even though they only earned 52% of the nations' income. How much more progressive would you want it to be? It appears that journalists, along with most Democrats, want the richest counties in the United States (which are around DC where they produce nothing) to get richer while holding down the opportunities for those throughout the rest of the country, especially the poor and middle class (who you pretend to care about).

Most of the richest 20% today did move up the economic ladder. They did not inherit the money but somehow, even if they did, Democrats think they are entitled to a greater and greater share of what other people earn. 

To Democrats, the problem is the government never has enough revenue even though it collects a record amount. There is always something new to tax, and today, it is wealth or marijuana or gambling or just raising rates on the "rich" without acknowledging that taking more money out of the private sector slows growth. They never seem to suggest that government can live with less. 

In FY 2009 the government collected $2.1 Trillion. In FY 2017 it collected $3.32 Trillion and it continues to grow. That is up around 60% in eight years. Have individuals received a 60% raise in eight years. I don't think so, but Democrats want more for the government. 

Catherine Rampell: Warren wasn’t the first candidate to propose a wealth tax. Trump was.

Congress has slashed taxes overall, but especially on the rich; reduced or eliminated brackets that applied only to the tippy-top income percentiles, making the tax code less progressive at the top; neutered the estate tax; cut rates on long-term capital gains; added "Inception"-like loopholes within loopholes, which disproportionately benefit taxpayers with the sophistication and resources to game the system; and gutted the Internal Revenue Service, which catches these tax dodgers. 

All of these deliberate choices helped the richest households to accumulate more wealth and make that wealth more persistent across generations.

They have also contributed to the government's growing revenue shortfall. If you want to patch deficits, go where the money is — increasingly, at the very top.

We should think of a wealth tax as a way to correct the mistakes of the past.