The National Debt Is Barreling Toward $50 Trillion. Now Trump May Give Out Massive Tax Cuts to the 1%
With the national debt accelerating past $39 trillion, the Trump administration is quietly crafting a capital gains overhaul that its architects call a fairness fix, but the math behind who actually owns capital assets in America tells a very different…
This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.
The national debt sits above $39 trillion and climbs by roughly $1.8 trillion a year, according to Congressional Budget Office data covering the first 10 months of fiscal 2026. At that pace, $50 trillion isn’t a distant hypothetical — it’s arithmetic.
Against that backdrop, the Trump administration is developing a capital gains proposal that would index cost basis to inflation, a change National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett confirmed is part of a broader tax package headed toward Republicans’ midterm election playbook.
The pitch sounds fair on its face: only tax real gains, not inflation. But the mechanics of who owns capital assets in America mean this proposal, whatever its merits, would deliver the overwhelming majority of its dollar benefit to a narrow slice of the wealthiest households.
Why the Money Flows to the Top
Capital gains realizations are not spread evenly across the income ladder — they’re concentrated near the summit. The top 1% of earners typically account for somewhere between 50% and 70%-plus of taxable long-term capital gains in a given year, and the top 0.1% alone can claim close to half of that total in some analyses. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% of the income distribution realizes only a small single-digit share of all capital gains, and many middle-income households report none at all in a typical year.
That matters because indexing doesn’t hand out a flat credit — it shrinks the taxable portion of whatever gain exists. A bigger gain means a bigger dollar reduction. Since wealthy households own and sell far more in appreciated stock, real estate, and business interests, they capture most of the savings almost by construction.
| Group | Share of Capital Gains Realized | Estimated Benefit |
| Top 0.1% | ~50% (some estimates) | Average cut in the hundreds of thousands of dollars |
| Top 1% | 50%–70%+ | Largest absolute and income-share gains |
| Bottom 80% | Low single digits | Minimal to no benefit |
The Data Backs the “Tax Cut for the Rich” Framing
Independent modeling reinforces the concentration. Analyses of indexing proposals similar to the one Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Tim Scott floated earlier in 2026 found the policy regressive by design — the bottom two income quintiles see essentially zero benefit, largely because they already pay a 0% long-term capital gains rate and rarely realize taxable gains in the first place. Measured as a share of after-tax income, Tax Foundation modeling of comparable proposals showed the top 1% gaining roughly 0.8% or more, versus a benefit near zero for lower quintiles.
That said, the picture isn’t perfectly uniform. A taxpayer sitting in the 0% capital gains bracket, or near its edge, could see a 100% relative reduction on a small taxable gain if indexing keeps them under the threshold — a large percentage change on a small dollar amount.
Similarly, moderate performers — assets that roughly tracked inflation rather than compounding well above it — could see most or all of their tax eliminated. But these are edge cases. Most middle-class equity exposure sits inside 401(k)s and IRAs, where capital gains taxes don’t apply the same way, which limits how many households ever encounter this benefit in a taxable account large enough to matter.
The Fiscal Cost Compounds the Debt Problem
Granted, the fairness argument for indexing — taxing only real gains instead of inflation-driven “phantom” ones — is logical on its own terms. But it collides directly with the debt trajectory driving this headline. The Cruz-Scott version was estimated to cost roughly $200 billion in federal revenue. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, citing Yale Budget Lab figures, projected the executive-action route alone could add $170 billion to $950 billion to the debt by 2035. CRFB president Maya MacGuineas called it a deficit-financed tax cut enacted “by executive fiat” at a moment when interest expenses already exceed $1 trillion a year.
Key Takeaway
In short, the critique holds up under the numbers: indexing capital gains concentrates its dollar and income-share benefits overwhelmingly among the top 1% and top 0.1%, while adding hundreds of billions to a debt already racing toward $50 trillion.
Investors — especially those without large taxable brokerage positions — shouldn’t expect this proposal to move their personal tax bill much, even if it eventually becomes law.
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
After two decades of patrolling the dark corners of suburbia as a police officer, Rich Duprey hung up his badge and gun to begin writing full time about stocks and investing. For the past 20 years he’s been cruising the markets looking for companies to lock up as long-term holdings in a portfolio while writing extensively on the broad sectors of consumer goods, technology, and industrials. Because his experience isn’t from the typical financial analyst track, Rich is able to break down complex topics into understandable and useful action points for the average investor. His writings have appeared on The Motley Fool, InvestorPlace, Yahoo! Finance, and Money Morning. He has been featured in both U.S. and international publications, including MarketWatch, Financial Times, Forbes, Fast Company, and USA Today.
