Is It Really the Billionaires, or Is the American Dream Becoming Too Damn Expensive?

I don't hate rich people. Quite the opposite. I admire people who build successful businesses, take risks, create jobs, and accomplish things most of us only dream about.

But I recently heard an argument that made me think. What if the problem isn't simply how much money billionaires have? What if it's how easily their money makes more money, while the rest of us struggle just to acquire something that might eventually make us money? And that got me thinking about my own situation.

I'm 48 years old. I own a small house and two pieces of land in Texas. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, one property has what I affectionately call my trash house on it. Lol.

It's an off-grid project I've spent years working on. I'm hoping to eventually build something unique enough that somebody wants to buy it. Or maybe I'll sell my current house and retire out there. Who knows?

But here's what people don't see. I lived off-grid for four years. I stopped eating out for two years and saved $17,000 to buy my second piece of land. Two years. No restaurants. No unnecessary spending. Just working, saving, and trying to build something.

It worked. I believe people can still accomplish things through discipline, sacrifice, and figuring stuff out. But I also wonder something.

Twenty years ago, would I have needed to sacrifice quite so much to accomplish the same thing? And what about people who don't have the opportunity, knowledge, health, or flexibility to live the way I did? That's where this argument gets interesting.

Why Working Americans Feel Cheated

According to Harvard's housing research, the typical American home cost approximately 3.2 times median household income during the 1990s. By 2024, that figure was around five times income. That's a pretty significant difference. And housing is just one part of the problem.

Healthcare is a big one. I haven't had real health insurance since 2009. Car insurance, groceries, transportation, and education can consume enormous portions of people's paychecks. The Federal Reserve reported that in 2025, only 35% of non-retired Americans believed their retirement savings were on track. Think about that.

People are working. They're paying taxes. They're raising families. And many aren't confident they'll ever retire comfortably. How are you supposed to build wealth when simply surviving consumes nearly everything you earn?

You can't invest money you don't have. You can't buy property if you can't save a down payment. And you can't benefit from compounding investments if you're constantly spending your savings on emergencies.

Meanwhile, somebody who already owns millions in assets can potentially make more money from investments in one year than most Americans earn in a lifetime. That's not necessarily theft. But I understand why it feels unfair.

Now let's look at the other side. Imagine spending decades building a business. You risk your savings. Work ridiculous hours. Hire employees. Survive failures. Maybe mortgage your house to keep the company alive. Eventually, the business becomes wildly successful.

Now politicians are telling you that you have too much money and should pay more taxes.
I can understand why that would irritate somebody. Especially when their wealth isn't necessarily sitting in a bank account. Much of it might be tied up in company stock, factories, buildings, and other investments.

If those assets increase in value, their net worth increases. But that doesn't mean they've received the equivalent amount in cash. Should somebody be taxed on investment gains they haven't actually realized? And what happens if the value drops the following year?

Critics of wealth taxes also argue that the government has a spending problem, not simply a revenue problem. If Washington already collects trillions of dollars, why should anyone believe collecting more will automatically improve ordinary Americans' lives?

That's a fair question. I'd certainly want to know where the money was going.

Let's imagine two people. One works full-time and manages to save $5,000. The other has $1 billion invested. If both earn a hypothetical 5% return, the first person earns $250.
The billionaire earns $50 million. Same percentage. Very different result. And the billionaire can potentially reinvest most of that return, allowing the money to compound.

The worker might need that $250 to fix a car. Now, investment returns aren't guaranteed, and billionaires can lose enormous amounts of money.

But there's something fundamentally different about building wealth through wages and building wealth through existing assets. Once you own enough assets, those assets can do much of the financial work for you. And that's where I start understanding the frustration.

The person who already has money has a tremendous advantage in making more. The person trying to get started faces a much steeper climb. Is that capitalism functioning properly? Or is that a system where the finish line keeps moving farther away from people who haven't reached the starting line?

I've never been particularly interested in socialism. I like owning property. I like starting businesses. I like having the freedom to build something and potentially profit from it.
But I can understand why people become interested in socialist or social-democratic ideas.

Imagine working 40 or 50 hours a week and still being unable to afford a decent apartment. Imagine delaying children because childcare costs too much. Imagine paying rent for 20 years and having no equity to show for it. Then imagine watching someone else's investment portfolio grow by millions. Eventually, wouldn't you start questioning the system?

Some people argue that higher taxes on extreme wealth could fund healthcare, childcare, housing assistance, or education. The idea isn't necessarily to punish success. It's to make opportunity more accessible. But these policies are not all the same thing. Public services and progressive taxation can exist within a capitalist economy. Government ownership of major industries is a much bigger change. And expanding government creates its own questions.

Would these programs actually improve affordability? Would higher taxes discourage investment or encourage wealthy people to relocate? Would government manage the money effectively? And would working Americans ultimately benefit? I don't know.

But I understand why people want to try something different.

What If Both Sides Have a Point? Here's where I get stuck.

I don't think billionaires should be punished simply for becoming billionaires. Success shouldn't be something we discourage. But I also don't believe ordinary Americans should need extraordinary sacrifices just to acquire modest assets. And maybe that's the distinction we're missing. I lived off-grid for years to save money. I'm glad I did. I learned a tremendous amount.

But should that level of sacrifice be necessary for someone who works full-time and wants to own a little property? Should people have to choose between enjoying their lives today and having financial security tomorrow? On the other hand, would taking more money from billionaires actually solve that problem?

If we taxed every billionaire more tomorrow, would houses suddenly become affordable? Would local zoning regulations change? Would insurance premiums fall? Would wages increase? Probably not automatically. There are much bigger structural issues involved.

And I don't want government deciding how much success someone is allowed to have.
I just want ordinary Americans to have a realistic opportunity to succeed themselves.

Here's What I Keep Coming Back To

Twenty years ago, I feel like acquiring the assets I own today would have required less sacrifice. Maybe I'm romanticizing the past. But housing affordability data suggests there's at least something real behind that feeling. I still believe in hard work. I still believe in personal responsibility. I still believe people can accomplish amazing things when they're willing to sacrifice and figure things out. But I'm starting to wonder whether we've confused opportunity with survival.

If someone works full-time, manages their money responsibly, and avoids unnecessary spending, shouldn't they have a reasonable shot at owning something? Not a mansion. Not a yacht. Just something. A house. A little land. A modest investment. Something that might eventually help them retire. Maybe the answer involves taxing wealthy Americans differently.

Maybe it involves building more housing, improving wages, reducing unnecessary regulations, or creating better opportunities to invest. Maybe it's some combination of all those things. But here's my question.

If capitalism rewards people who own assets, shouldn't we be making it easier for working Americans to become asset owners? Because I don't want to take away somebody else's billion dollars. I want a system where the person making $50,000 a year has a realistic chance to build something too.

If making that happen requires a serious conversation about taxes, capitalism, government spending, and wealth inequality, shouldn't we be having it? I'm not convinced socialism is the answer. I'm also not convinced our current system is working as well as it should.

All I know is that I spent four years living off-grid and two years avoiding restaurants just to build a little financial security. I'm proud of what I've accomplished. But sometimes I wonder whether that story represents the American Dream.