> Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T):

Adding a wealth tax doesn't mean eliminating existing income taxes.

> Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).

Perhaps , but what about poor states like West Virginia or Alabama. It's not universal if they don't receive benefits also.

▲

godwinson__4-8 an hour ago | parent [-]

Just remember those states are already handout states. They take more money in than they give back. They also have some bizarre cultural hatred for the blue states and cities that make this country an economic superpower. The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.

▲

danans 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.

Absent a federal wealth redistribution, yes NYC must do its best for it's residents. I'm not disagreeing with that. A federal wealth tax, however, would tax Alabama billionaires as much as it would tax NYC billionaires.

	▲	godwinson__4-8 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. It is a good thing as you point out to remember that even so called "poor states" also suffer from pretty severe wealth inequality, in some cases perhaps more stark than one would find in the blue cities, if only because the floor can appear far wider and lower.