Redirecting wealth above $100 million to public infrastructure could provide a vast pool of money for roads, schools, water systems and broadband. But the fortunes involved are largely held in businesses, property and investments, not cash. Collecting them would take time and could affect markets, retirement savings and the public services the money is meant to support.
How much wealth above $100 million could cover
In 2023, federal infrastructure spending was about $125 billion. Including state and local governments, annual spending reached about $626 billion on roads, broadband access, water systems and other infrastructure. Those sums are substantial, yet they fall short of the work needed to repair and upgrade the country’s assets.
A 2025 report from the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that bringing US infrastructure into good repair would cost $9.1 trillion. Even if current funding levels continued, the country would face a $3.7 trillion shortfall over a decade, the group said. The figures show why a large new source of money is appealing, but they are not a direct measure of how much could be raised by taking wealth above a threshold.
| Measure | Amount | What it represents |
|---|---|---|
| Federal infrastructure spending in 2023 | About $125 billion | Federal spending in the last full year of data cited |
| Annual spending by all levels of government | About $626 billion | Federal, state and local infrastructure spending |
| Estimated cost to reach a good state of repair | $9.1 trillion | Nationwide infrastructure repair needs |
| Projected gap over a decade | $3.7 trillion | Shortfall if existing funding levels are maintained |
Henley & Partners counted 10,835 Americans with at least $100 million in investable wealth in its 2025 report on American wealth. A separate Federal Reserve measure offers a broader view of the very wealthy: the top 0.1%, about 135,000 households with at least $47 million in net worth, hold more than $23 trillion combined. Their average net worth is about $172 million.
The two measures do not describe identical groups. Investable wealth is not the same as net worth, and the Federal Reserve does not publish a separate total for people above $100 million. Still, the figures suggest the potential pool is large enough to rival infrastructure needs on paper. They do not show how quickly assets could be collected or how much their sale would yield.
Where a major infrastructure fund could go
Roads, bridges and public transit could receive large scale upgrades under a plan that devoted substantial new revenue to construction and repairs. Water systems could replace lead pipes more quickly, while electric grid work could improve reliability and prepare the network to handle more renewable power. Rural communities could also see broadband projects move faster.
Some of the proposed priorities extend beyond traditional roads and utilities. The source proposal includes AI data centers and cybersecurity systems, areas where infrastructure needs are growing. How those projects would be selected, and which level of government would run them, would shape whether new funding reached areas with the greatest need.
Public investment can have effects beyond the projects themselves. Building transport, energy and water systems supports jobs and can improve productivity, reduce costs over time and encourage economic growth in regions that gain better connections. Those gains depend on choosing useful projects and maintaining them after construction, not simply on making a large initial allocation.
US infrastructure already relies on several recurring revenue streams. Gas taxes, tolls and general revenues pay for much of it. The federal government covers about one quarter of highway and transit spending, with state and local governments paying the rest. Public private partnerships are growing, but account for only about 1% to 2% of US infrastructure investment.
Other tax proposals offer a more limited comparison. Massachusetts voters approved a 4% surtax on income above $1 million in 2022; it raised almost $3 billion for schools and transit in 2025. A California ballot initiative would impose a one time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s federal ultra millionaire tax proposal would apply to fortunes above $50 million. Each approach differs in who pays and how the tax is structured.
Why collecting the wealth could disrupt the economy
Much of a wealthy person’s net worth is tied up in company ownership, real estate and stock. It is not a bank balance ready to transfer. If people had to sell assets on a large scale to pay a levy, those sales could put pressure on prices and unsettle financial markets. A drop in stock values could also reach workers and retirees through pension funds and retirement accounts.
Wealth estimates shift as markets move. Someone’s reported net worth can rise or fall by tens of millions of dollars without any change in their available cash. A tax based on a particular valuation date would need rules for valuing private companies, property and other hard to price holdings. The system would also have to determine how to enforce payment and distribute the proceeds. That work would require more administrative capacity than the IRS currently has.
Some asset owners might move wealth abroad to avoid the collection effort. The prospect of forced sales could also reduce private investment in startups, medical research and new technologies. That would create a trade off: public projects could gain funding while private ventures lost some of the capital used to develop products and businesses. Legal and constitutional challenges could delay any sweeping policy as well.
Even a large one time collection would not solve the ongoing funding problem by itself. Roads need repairs after they are built, water systems need upkeep, and transit networks require continuing investment. Economists generally favor predictable funding for infrastructure because governments and contractors need to plan projects over many years. A sudden windfall might help pay for construction, but it would not automatically provide a stable source for maintenance.
The central question is therefore not only whether fortunes above $100 million could cover a large share of the repair bill on paper. It is whether a government could collect that wealth without causing broader costs, and whether the proceeds could be turned into reliable funding rather than a temporary spending surge.