The Wall Street Journal published the proposals June 4 as part of its yearlong “USA250” series examining America’s economic trajectory through its first 250 years. The article cited Census Bureau data showing that the gap between high- and low-income households has widened: households at the 90th percentile earned 12.6 times as much as households at the 10th percentile in 2024, up from a ratio of 8.7 in 1976.
The Journal also reported that, according to Forbes 400 data, the real wealth of the top 400 richest Americans has grown by a factor of 15 since 1982, while average U.S. family incomes have less than doubled over the same period. The AI boom has further concentrated gains at the top, the article noted, raising questions about whether the current policy framework is equipped to prevent inequality from widening further.
Saez, who directs the Stone Center on Wealth and Income Inequality at UC Berkeley, argued that billionaires are lightly taxed relative to their full economic income. “A well-enforced wealth tax on comprehensive wealth is the most direct way to make the billionaire class contribute more,” Saez wrote. He estimated that billionaires pay about 24% of their economic income in total taxes, below the overall average tax rate of 30%. Revenue from a wealth tax, he said, could be invested in programs to help low- and middle-income Americans.
Cochrane, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, rejected the premise that rising inequality requires a redistributive policy response. “Our billionaires kept a fraction of the benefit they generated for us by starting these innovative businesses,” Cochrane wrote. He argued that regulations, occupational licensing, and social programs that phase out benefits as earnings rise trap workers in poverty. “Don’t kill the golden goose,” he said.
Chetty, a Harvard economist who leads the policy research group Opportunity Insights, said the U.S. should focus on scaling programs with proven track records of improving upward mobility. He pointed to housing voucher programs that enable low-income families to move to better neighborhoods, targeted community revitalization, K-12 investments, and employer-partnered workforce training. “Rather than debating the merits of income redistribution, we should start by scaling such evidence-backed efforts to improve opportunities for upward mobility,” Chetty wrote. He noted that many of these programs ultimately pay for themselves through higher tax revenue and lower safety-net spending.
Boushey, a former member of President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers now at the Harvard Kennedy School, called for a multi-pronged strategy that includes revitalizing unions, enforcing antitrust laws, and investing in education and clean energy. “We need to reverse the long-term decline in the power of unions and give workers a say in what’s happening in their workplaces,” Boushey wrote. She argued that the consequences of climate change are already falling disproportionately on lower-income communities and that building a clean-energy economy will be central to middle-class prosperity.
Hubbard, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, focused on helping workers adapt to technological disruption. He warned that AI could bring “enormous dislocation” even faster than past waves of globalization and technological change. Hubbard proposed placing applied research centers across the country to help regions compete by working with local businesses and workers on AI adaptation. He also called for a more generous earned-income tax credit that is tied to work rather than family size. “So as a society, we need to decide if we care about the opportunity version of inequality, and we need to spend money to fix it,” Hubbard said.