By Yiannis Damellos
November 6, 2026
There was just one dark spot in this midterm election: the almost certain defeat of a proposed billionaire wealth tax in California. The skirmish was close, but it did not change the outcome of the broader battle that was won by a landslide, nor does it invalidate the demands for universal healthcare, affordable housing, better wages and accessible education that Democratic Socialists are fighting for. Instead, because the DSA managed something previously unthinkable, it calls for a broader economic strategy, one that distributes the responsibility for financing social progress across corporate America, Wall Street, inherited fortunes and public investment.
The fight for a more equitable American economy is far from over. The rejection of a proposed 5% tax on billionaire wealth represents a setback for one particular financing mechanism, not a rejection of the social programmes that progressive Democrats have been fighting to establish. Bernie Sanders and his allies should understand the result as an invitation to reconsider their strategy, broaden their political coalition and develop alternative ways to finance their ambitions.
The mistake would be to allow one tax proposal to become synonymous with the entire progressive economic agenda. Universal healthcare, affordable housing, accessible education, stronger public services and better working conditions are not dependent on a single source of revenue. They require a sustainable funding structure, and there are several ways to build one.
The first alternative is a more progressive income-tax system. Rather than concentrating the argument on accumulated wealth, Democrats could pursue additional marginal tax brackets for exceptionally high earners, close preferential treatment for certain forms of executive compensation and ensure that investment income does not consistently receive more favourable treatment than income earned through work. This would shift the discussion towards the capacity to contribute without turning ordinary savings, homes and retirement accounts into political targets.
Corporate taxation offers another substantial opportunity. Multinational corporations benefit from American infrastructure, research, education and consumer markets, yet sophisticated accounting arrangements and international profit shifting can substantially reduce their effective tax obligations. Closing loopholes, reviewing corporate deductions, strengthening minimum effective tax requirements and addressing preferential treatment of stock buybacks could generate additional revenue while establishing a simple principle: corporations that profit enormously from the American economy should contribute fairly to the society supporting their operations.
Wall Street should also be part of the conversation. A carefully designed financial transactions tax, applying small levies to selected transactions involving stocks, bonds and derivatives, could provide another revenue stream. The United States has one of the world's largest financial markets. It is reasonable to ask whether a fraction of the enormous volume of financial activity could help finance public priorities. Appropriate protections would be necessary for ordinary retirement accounts and small investors, while the tax could also discourage some forms of excessive short-term speculation.
Another area deserving attention is inherited wealth. The concentration of fortunes across generations has created opportunities for wealthy families to preserve economic advantages that ordinary working families cannot access. Reforming federal estate taxation, closing trust and valuation loopholes, and addressing preferential treatment of inherited capital gains could make the tax system more equitable. The objective would not be to penalize ordinary family inheritances but to ensure that exceptionally large fortunes do not enjoy a privileged position beyond the reach of public responsibility.
Housing and land speculation present a further opportunity. As housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, progressive policymakers should examine how speculative investment contributes to the problem. Carefully structured taxes on vacant luxury properties, speculative land gains and extraordinary property windfalls could discourage unproductive speculation while helping finance affordable housing initiatives. Such measures would need to be designed around local market conditions and avoid burdening ordinary homeowners.
Taxation, however, is only one part of the equation. Government spending itself requires greater scrutiny. Federal procurement, particularly in defence, pharmaceutical purchasing and major infrastructure contracts, deserves closer examination. Cost overruns, excessive contractor profits and poorly structured subsidies can divert enormous public resources from their intended purposes. Negotiating lower prescription drug prices, expanding generic competition and reducing unnecessary healthcare administration could also release funds for other priorities. These savings should not be confused with new tax revenue, but they can reduce programme costs and make existing public resources go further.
There is also a more ambitious way to think about the relationship between public investment and private profit. For decades, taxpayers have helped finance scientific research, technological development, infrastructure and industrial innovation, while much of the resulting commercial value has accrued to private companies. A progressive economic programme should explore ways for the public to receive a reasonable return on its investments through royalties, revenue-sharing agreements, public ownership stakes and other mechanisms. Public money should not simply absorb the risks while private investors retain all the rewards.
This leads to a longer-term proposal: a national public wealth fund. Such a fund could accumulate resources through selected government investments, royalties from publicly owned natural resources, returns on strategic public assets and revenue-sharing arrangements involving publicly financed innovation. Its purpose would be to build an enduring source of public wealth, with investment returns helping support future social programmes. It would not replace taxation or immediately finance universal healthcare, but it could gradually strengthen the financial foundations of the social contract.
These proposals are not interchangeable, and they will not all produce the same revenue. Some require federal legislation, others can be pursued at state or local level, and several would need careful economic modelling before implementation. Their strength lies in diversification. Rather than making the success of an entire social programme dependent on one controversial tax, progressives can develop a portfolio of revenue sources, spending reforms and public investments.
There is a political dimension to this strategy as well. The progressive movement needs greater representation, stronger organisation and a wider coalition of voters who understand what is at stake. Its economic argument should begin with the realities of everyday life: the cost of healthcare, the price of housing, the burden of education and the growing distance between wages and living expenses. Voters should be shown not only what a programme promises but how it will be financed, implemented and sustained.
The message to Americans should be clear. A government that can mobilise enormous resources for military procurement, corporate subsidies and financial market support can also develop the capacity to invest seriously in the people who sustain the economy. The question is not whether the United States can afford a better social contract. It is how its resources are allocated, who benefits from public investment and who is expected to contribute.
Sanders and the progressive Democrats should not retreat from their ambitions. They should broaden their approach, build alliances beyond their traditional political base and turn the financing of social programmes into a comprehensive economic reform agenda. The billionaire wealth tax was one proposal, not the entire movement's economic blueprint.
The fight continues, with more representation, more political power and more ways to make economic fairness financially sustainable. The objective has not changed: an economy that works for the people who build it, not merely for those who own the largest share of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment