Guided walkthrough
Model verdict · wealth-tax policy
Calculating
2% above $10M · $1,000/mo adult equivalent
Does the policy make ordinary Americans better off?
Loading the calibrated U.S. scenario…
Core test
Does the bottom half keep more buying power after inflation?
Every result is conditional on the assumptions below—not a forecast. Use the i icons for definitions.
Who wins, who loses
Every group gets an explicit ten-year outcome.
Each bar shows where a cohort ends versus the no-policy path, combining wealth tax paid, household cash transfers received, purchasing power after inflation, and asset-price effects. Renters read on buying power; asset-holders read on real net worth. See what the model does and doesn't capture.
A household like mine
Map your household onto the nearest modeled cohort.
The model runs entirely in your browser; your inputs are saved to this page's link so you can bookmark or share the view. The card updates whenever you change a policy dial above or below.
Enter a few details to see your modeled outcome.
What drives the verdict
Which assumption moves the answer most?
Each bar sweeps one assumption across its full plausible range while every other dial holds still, then measures the swing in the bottom half's ten-year buying power. Longer bars matter more. Green means raising that dial helps the bottom half; orange means it hurts. Click any bar to load that value into the form.
Tipping point
Joint uncertainty
What happens when assumptions move together?
Run a seeded Latin-hypercube ensemble over growth, compliance, financing, housing, inflation, and market assumptions, including declared structural dependencies between related dials. The p10–p90 ranges are assumption distributions, not confidence intervals or forecasts; policy choices such as the wealth-tax schedule and cash/services mix stay fixed.
Run the ensemble when you want a slower, joint-assumption check of this scenario.
Outcome bands
Strongest global influences
Strongest pairwise interactions
The ten-year story
The transfer helps first. Prices and financing decide whether it lasts.
Every line starts at an index of 100. A value of 105 means 5% above the no-policy path; 95 means 5% below it.
A/B scenario comparison
Pinned Scenario A vs. the live scenario
Ghosted lines on every chart trace Scenario A; the table shows how the live scenario departs from it.
| Outcome | Scenario A (pinned) | Live | Δ live − A |
|---|
Follow the dollars
Borrowing is the hinge in this scenario.
-
01
Year-one wealth tax collected—on net worth above the exemption
-
02
How wealthy households pay—— in new bank loans
-
03
Cash and services in year one——
-
04
Ten years later—— in private tax debt
What this means:
Taxing and transferring existing deposits does not create money. New bank loans do.
Test the owner–renter gap theory
Calculating
Does tax-funded redistribution widen the housing divide?
Tracing each required link in the proposed causal chain…
- 01 · Accounting result—tax-payment loans create deposits
- 02 · Recipient portfolio—transfer cash seeks assets
- 03 · New-money recycling—new deposits seek assets
- 04 · Market response—house-price premium vs. no policy
- 05 · Incidence test—renter housing-burden change
- 06 · Distribution result—owner–renter housing-position gap
Open-economy closure
Calculating
Who absorbs the assets and public debt?
Tracing foreign ownership, resident foreign claims, and the net external position…
- Foreign-owned domestic claims—securities and housing claims purchased by non-residents
- Foreign-held Treasury debt—new program debt placed abroad
- Resident foreign claims—capital outflow net of repatriation
- Net foreign asset position—U.S. foreign claims less foreign U.S. claims
- Peak FX pressure—directional, not an exchange-rate forecast
What this means:Every reported cross-border transaction is replayed through the double-entry ledger.
How far from hyperinflation?
A stress test, not a prediction.
Each cell holds peak annual inflation in a ten-year run. The selected fiscal rules determine actual outlays, debt, and surplus use.
Rows · Benefit scale1× uses the benefit amounts selected below; 2× doubles both amounts.
Columns · Issued debt monetized0% leaves debt issued by the selected funding rule unmonetized; 100% models permanent money creation for all of that debt.
Stable <5%
Elevated 5–10%
High 10–50%
Crisis 50–500%
Extreme 500%+
Hyper: 50% monthly
How do we know?
The inflation engine, checked against 2020–2023.
The same reduced-form kernel that produces every number above is fed the actual U.S. money supply of 2019–2022 and asked to reproduce the inflation that followed. This checks the kernel's money-growth transmission channel — one set of published coefficients, no per-year tuning; supply and energy shocks are outside the reduced form.
Modeled vs. actual CPI
Why the model says this
The benefit and the risk are both visible.
—
—
Does rich-people debt get passed to the poor? Not automatically. It remains the borrower’s liability unless government later socializes losses through bailouts, guarantees, or monetary financing.
Inspect model detailsFunding paths, deciles, sectors, and accounting
Represented households—
Resident people—
Annual personal income—
Baseline annual PCE—
Aggregate net worth—
Sampled agents—
Funding-path comparison
Each column reruns the same households with a different first choice for paying the tax. “Δ” means change from the starting scenario.
| Metric | Cash first | Borrow first | Sell first |
|---|
Household deciles
D1 is the lowest-wealth tenth of households; D10 is the highest-wealth tenth. Values are averages within each group.
| Decile | Net worth before | Net worth after | Tax paid | UBI received | Consumption Δ |
|---|
Consumption sectors
Each cell shows additional modeled demand followed by its estimated inflation contribution in percentage points.
| Sector | Cash first | Borrow first | Sell first |
|---|
Model boundaries
Balance-sheet, population, income, and consumption calibration metadata loads with the U.S. baseline.
Model constants
The load-bearing numeric assumptions behind every figure, each with a one-line rationale and source. Rows marked Tunable can be changed under Advanced simulation controls.
| Constant | Default | Why / source |
|---|
Real-world policy references
Named proposals and historical precedents.
The presets above encode the published parameters of actual proposals. These cards are reference material, not simulations — compare the model's output against what named plans specified and what wealth taxes actually did abroad.
Warren 2020 — Ultra-Millionaire Tax
Senator Elizabeth Warren's plan set a graduated annual tax: 2% on net worth above $50M and 6% above $1B (raised from an initial 3% surtax on billionaires). Estimated by Saez and Zucman to raise roughly $3.75T over ten years.
Warren campaign — Ultra-Millionaire TaxSanders 2020 — Tax on Extreme Wealth
Senator Bernie Sanders proposed an eight-bracket schedule for married couples rising from 1% above $32M to 8% above $10B (thresholds halved for single filers). Saez and Zucman estimated about $4.35T over ten years.
Sanders campaign — Tax on Extreme WealthFrance — ISF (repealed 2017)
France levied the impôt de solidarité sur la fortune on net wealth for decades before replacing it with a real-estate-only tax (IFI) in 2018. Studies of the pre-repeal period documented meaningful expatriation of high-net-worth taxpayers and contested revenue relative to administrative cost.
OECD — Role and Design of Net Wealth TaxesStill operating — Norway, Switzerland, Spain
Three European systems still run annual net-wealth taxes. Switzerland's cantonal tax is long-standing and yields comparatively high revenue with low thresholds; Norway and Spain tax net wealth above exemptions but at rates far below the Warren/Sanders proposals, which shapes their observed behavioral response.
OECD — Role and Design of Net Wealth TaxesSweden — repealed 2007
Sweden taxed net wealth until abolishing the levy in 2007 amid concerns about capital flight, valuation difficulty, and revenue that fell short of expectations. Its experience is frequently cited in debates over whether a broad-based wealth tax is administrable.
OECD — Role and Design of Net Wealth TaxesCalibration and definitions