A renewed debate over the meaning of the “pursuit of happiness” in the United States has sparked intense discussion about inequality, generational divides, and the future of capitalism. The conversation was reignited by Mike Green, Chief Strategist at Simplify Asset Management, who previously stirred controversy by arguing that the real poverty line in America is far higher than officially acknowledged. His latest work shifts focus from income thresholds to the philosophical and economic foundations of the American system itself.
Green argues that over the past four decades, the United States has drifted away from prioritizing the pursuit of happiness and instead built an economy optimized around property and asset ownership. Drawing from the intellectual lineage of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, Green highlights how Jefferson replaced Locke’s emphasis on property with the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. According to Green, modern policy has reversed that vision.
He contends that the economic framework established over the last 40 to 50 years has disproportionately benefited asset owners, particularly baby boomers, while undermining the prospects of millennials and Gen Z. Green clarifies that this is not an accusation against individuals, but rather an observation that the generation in power during this transition shaped policies that favored capital over labor.
Following regulatory and tax reforms in the 1960s and 1970s, policies were initially framed as progressive and designed to help lower-income Americans. However, Green argues that access to power gradually led to subtle shifts that protected wealth and property, often justified by the belief that those benefits were deserved. Over time, this created economic moats around asset holders.
He challenges the commonly cited claim that the top 1 percent pays roughly half of all income taxes, noting that income taxes alone do not reflect the true tax burden. Payroll taxes such as FICA, which weigh heavily on middle-income workers, are excluded from those figures. When all taxes are considered, Green says households in the middle income range have seen their tax burden rise significantly, while it has fallen for the wealthiest Americans.
Joining the discussion, Lily Gil, founder and CEO of Cultural Plus Group and a longtime observer of American social behavior, framed Green’s argument as a call to rebalance incentives toward productivity rather than asset ownership. She emphasized that tax arbitrage, financial engineering, and favorable incentives have helped asset owners preserve and grow wealth, while wage earners struggle to keep up with rising costs.
Gil stressed that this is not about redistribution, but about restoring balance so that work, innovation, and effort are rewarded more clearly. Green agreed, arguing that economic systems should encourage participation, effort, and upward mobility. He criticized welfare and benefit structures that create what he described as a “valley of death,” where benefits disappear before households can truly achieve stability, discouraging people from trying to escape poverty.
One of Green’s proposed solutions is what he calls the “Rule of 65,” which centers policy around households at the 65th income percentile. Rather than targeting the median, Green believes policy should reward those who strive to do better than average, encouraging productivity and ambition. Under this framework, taxes would shift away from labor and toward idle capital.
While critics view this as redistribution, Green argues that redistribution has already occurred in the opposite direction, with productivity gains flowing disproportionately to capital owners. He maintains that his proposal would reduce burdens for most Americans, with only the top 1 percent seeing a relative reduction in gains, not an absolute loss.
The conversation also addressed political and cultural implications. The declining public image of capitalism, alongside rising interest in socialism, has become increasingly visible, particularly in urban centers like New York City. Observers noted that recent support for socialist candidates has not primarily come from the poorest voters, but from educated elites. This trend raises questions about trust in capitalism and the perceived fairness of the current system.
Gil pointed out that younger generations face mounting affordability challenges, especially in housing and essential living costs, which continue to outpace wage growth. While acknowledging contradictions in modern complaints, she noted that dissatisfaction stems from structural issues rather than ideology alone. As an immigrant, she cautioned against romanticizing socialism, pointing out that several countries with long socialist histories have recently voted to move away from it.
The debate also touched on whether Americans are idealizing the past. Referencing arguments by thinkers like Steven Pinker, the discussion acknowledged that modern life includes conveniences unimaginable to previous generations. Green agreed that these advancements should be appreciated and that innovators should be rewarded, but emphasized that the core issue is not technological progress, but how its benefits are distributed.
Green underscored that capitalism itself is not about distribution, but about efficiently transmitting information through prices to generate economic activity. The growing dissatisfaction among younger Americans, he argued, reflects frustration with outcomes rather than the system’s underlying mechanics.
The panel concluded by addressing whether capitalism needs reform. Both Green and Gil agreed that capitalism, like any system, requires periodic retooling. With rapid changes driven by artificial intelligence, fintech, and democratized access to knowledge, they argued that opportunity has never been broader, but education and policy must adapt accordingly.
Gil emphasized that today’s generation has unprecedented access to tools for ownership, wealth creation, and innovation. She called on leaders and institutions to better equip young people to understand and participate in capitalism, rather than disengage from it. While acknowledging systemic flaws, she stressed personal agency and responsibility alongside reform.
The debate ultimately returned to the central theme of the pursuit of happiness. As economic structures evolve and generational tensions rise, the question facing policymakers and society is whether the American system can realign incentives to restore faith in productivity, opportunity, and upward mobility without abandoning the foundations that made growth possible in the first place.
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available broadcast commentary and reflects the views and opinions expressed by the participants. It is intended for informational and analytical purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial, political, or investment advice.
