The transformation of the American economy over the past forty years, especially recently, is marked by a stark upward redistribution of wealth and income. This makes the stance of certain prominent Democrats against wealth taxes, particularly the governors of states boasting the most billionaires, quite puzzling. Intellectually, empirically, and politically, this position seems less than defensible.
More from Harold Meyerson
Consider the situation of California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Are they frankly unaware of this seismic economic shift, or are they, perhaps, actively participating in it? It might not be an either/or situation.
A remarkable study by UC Berkeley economists, including Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, highlighted this economic chasm. From 1982 to 2025, the wealth of America’s 400 richest individuals ballooned from 2% to a staggering 20% of the nation’s GDP. Equally astounding, the wealthiest 19 American households increased their wealth by $1 trillion in 2024 alone, as flagged by David Dayen. Meanwhile, the 50% of American households languishing at the bottom saw their share dwindle from 3.4% to 2.6% over a comparable period, as documented by the Institute for Policy Studies.
This economic K-shape, showcasing the prosperity of the affluent contrasted with the plight of the less privileged, ought to be glaringly evident. Whereas the top income earners have witnessed their consumer spending swell, the opposite is true for the majority. As per Moody’s Analytics, thirty years ago, the top 10% were responsible for 36% of consumer spending, leaving 48% to the bottom 80%. Today, that top 10% accounts for 49% of spending, as the broader base’s contribution declines to 37%.
Even airlines realign their offerings, expanding first-class as coach space shrinks; mind you, that’s quite a squeeze! Retailers, like Dollar Tree, find more affluent clientele patronising their aisles. An exploration into “premiumization,” as captured by Emma Janssen, lays bare how American marketers pivot to cater primarily to the wealthiest demographics.
Given this scenario, it seems entirely sensible for initiatives like those led by SEIU in California to advocate for wealth taxes. Moreover, figures such as Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, and Elizabeth Warren champion national wealth tax models. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s call for a meagre 2% tax increase on the wealthiest New Yorkers is a pragmatic step to address the city’s financial shortfalls.
Historically, America wasn’t shy about taxing its wealthiest. Under Eisenhower, taxation on the top income bracket peaked at 91%, dipping to 70% before Reagan’s tenure. Those were times of widely shared prosperity, bolstered also by strong union representation.
Conversely, today’s political landscape has allowed wealth to influence political power profoundly. A New York Times investigation revealed that a mere 300 billionaires were behind 19% of all campaign contributions for federal elections in 2024. Unless there’s a Supreme Court that appreciates the nexus between wealth concentration and political influence—and deems it undesirable—democracy itself could remain imperiled.
Ultimately, one might expect that governors of states like New York and California, deeply entwined with Silicon Valley and Wall Street, recognise this reality. It seems imperative they acknowledge the harmful dependency on billionaire benefaction, lest it exacerbates economic and political divides.
