Elizabeth Warren Introduces Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act
Sen. Elizabeth Warren led reintroduction of the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which would generate $6.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade by applying a wealth tax to fortunes above $50 million.
Objective Facts
U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Representative Brendan F. Boyle led over 45 lawmakers in reintroducing the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which would generate $6.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade. The bill establishes a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts valued at over $50 million and an additional 1% annual surtax (3% total annual tax) on the net worth of households and trusts above $1 billion. The bill includes $100 million in new funding for the IRS and a 40% "exit tax" on the wealth of ultra-millionaires and billionaires who renounce their citizenship to avoid the tax. The proposal would affect approximately 260,000 households, or the top 0.15% of American households. The bill is unlikely to pass given the partisan divide, echoing the fate of earlier versions that stalled without a vote amid opposition from Republicans and resistance from some more centrist Democrats.
Left-Leaning Perspective
U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Representative Brendan F. Boyle led over 45 lawmakers in reintroducing the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. David Kass, Americans For Tax Fairness's Executive Director, stated that under Republicans and President Trump, Congress is spending trillions of dollars on tax cuts that only benefit the ultra wealthy while everyday Americans feel the pressure of an increasingly unaffordable cost of living. Patriotic Millionaires chair Morris Pearl argued that the only way to ensure the United States has a rich, stable, and free economy is by building a tax system that puts a check on the extreme inequality that threatens the economy and democracy, noting that millionaires want less inequality because they and their families will be better off in a society with less economic disparity. Representative Pramila Jayapal emphasized that as millions of families are struggling under inflation, tariffs, and rising gas prices, the richest billionaires continue to see their net worth grow, and the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act is a major step toward making sure the wealthy finally pay their fair share and narrow the racial wealth gap. Democrats argue that the richest one percent of Americans own more than 30 percent of the nation's wealth but pay just 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes while others pay twice as much, making reform urgent. Lee Saunders, President of AFSCME, asserted that working Americans understand that revenue is needed to invest in critical infrastructure and that AFSCME applauds Sen. Warren's efforts to hold ultra-rich "freeloaders" accountable so they too contribute to the nation's enduring success. Public polling cited by progressive supporters found that 80% of Americans saw wealth inequality as a problem, 80% said the rich had too much political power, and 78% said taxes on billionaires were too low. At the beginning of 2026, an Institute for Policy Studies analysis found that the total wealth of US billionaires surged to $8.1 trillion in 2025, and even a columnist at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal acknowledged that "billionaires' low taxes are becoming a problem for the economy." What progressive coverage downplays is the bill's practical likelihood of passage in a GOP-controlled Congress and the unresolved constitutional questions about federal wealth taxation authority.
Right-Leaning Perspective
National Review characterized the progressive wealth taxes as "unjust and economically destructive — if they worked." The National Taxpayers Union argued that Warren's plan continues to drastically overestimate the potential revenue to be raised, handwave difficult questions of administrability, and portend significant economic consequences. Chris Edwards, the head of fiscal studies at the Cato Institute, explained that France repealed its wealth tax in 2017 after it was found to cost the government twice as much revenue as it raised by encouraging capital flight. Conservative critics contend that the wealthy hold their fortunes primarily in illiquid assets: public equity (37 percent), private equity (29 percent), and real estate and luxury assets (3 percent), and to pay an annual wealth tax, those subject to it would need to sell holdings they had no intention of liquidating, distorting markets and reducing the value of ordinary Americans' retirement accounts. The National Taxpayers Union noted that Senator Warren, like Senator Sanders, turns to the authority of Saez and Zucman to estimate $6.17 trillion in revenue from the tax over the next decade, but five years prior, Saez and Zucman had estimated less than half as much revenue from the same tax. The Union also argues that suggestions by Senators Sanders and Warren that wealth tax revenue could be used to fund vast new social programs ignores the fact that the federal government will run a deficit of over $23 trillion between 2026 and 2035, and even the senators' likely overoptimistic projections of $4–6 trillion in revenue from their plans fail to raise enough money to cover more than a quarter of the deficit. The National Taxpayers Union contends that the United States already has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. What right-leaning coverage downplays is the rapid growth of billionaire wealth documented by left-leaning policy institutes and the empirical evidence that Stanford researchers found millionaires are actually less likely to migrate than lower-income Americans.
Deep Dive
Senator Elizabeth Warren led the March 2026 reintroduction of the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act with over 45 co-sponsors, generating $6.2 trillion in estimated revenue over the next decade according to UC Berkeley economists. The bill was similar to one Warren introduced in 2021, but since then the fortunes of America's wealthiest families have soared, while millions of low- and middle-income families continue to face an affordability crunch, and Warren's bill would raise more than double the amount that was forecast for the 2021 version. The core economic disagreement centers on whether wealth taxation can be practically administered and whether capital flight—observed in France's 2000-2016 experience—represents a binding constraint on U.S. policy. What each side gets right: Progressives correctly identify that wealth concentration has accelerated dramatically and that effective tax rates on the ultra-wealthy appear lower than rates on working people when measured against net worth rather than income. Conservatives correctly note that valuing illiquid assets poses genuine administrative challenges and that foreign wealth tax experience offers cautionary lessons. What they leave out: Progressives downplay the genuine difficulty of valuation and enforcement without addressing why the Saez-Zucman revenue estimates differ so sharply from Penn Wharton's more conservative projections. Conservatives minimize the fact that Stanford researchers found millionaires migrate at lower rates than the general population and that their international comparisons may not account for differences in enforcement capacity or asset composition between the U.S. and 1990s-era France. The bill faces steep odds in a divided Congress, with previous versions stalling without a vote amid opposition from Republicans and resistance from some more centrist Democrats. The core unresolved question is whether the proposal would generate sufficient revenue to fund promised social programs while remaining constitutionally sound, and whether the exit tax mechanism Warren included—set at 40 percent—signals her own concern about capital flight risks.