Florida voters will not choose between two slightly different economic agendas in the U.S. Senate race. Angie Nixon and Ashley Moody disagree over who creates prosperity, who deserves the first claim on it and how much power Washington should exercise over the economy.

Nixon argues that billionaires and large corporations have accumulated too much wealth and political influence while working families struggle with housing, health care and child-care costs. She wants Washington to tax that accumulated wealth and use the proceeds to finance much larger public benefits.

Moody starts from the opposite premise. She argues that lower taxes, private investment, domestic production and restrained government create jobs and raise incomes. She rejects Nixon’s wealth tax and warns that Washington cannot tax, regulate and spend its way into prosperity.

That gives voters a clear economic choice. Nixon wants the federal government to redistribute substantially more private wealth. Moody wants government to leave more capital in private hands and rely on economic growth.

But conservatives should examine Moody’s record critically, too. Supporting tax cuts does not automatically constitute fiscal conservatism if Washington continues borrowing trillions of dollars. The responsible question is not merely which candidate promises lower taxes. It is which agenda offers working Americans the best chance to prosper without leaving future generations with the bill.

Nixon would impose an annual tax on billionaire wealth

Nixon supports a 5% annual federal tax on individual net worth above $1 billion. Unlike an income tax, which applies when someone earns money, Nixon’s proposal would tax the estimated value of assets that a billionaire continues to own.

That distinction matters.

A business founder could owe a federal tax based on the assessed value of company shares even without selling those shares or receiving an equivalent amount of cash. The government would have to value privately held businesses, real estate, investment partnerships, intellectual property and other assets every year. Taxpayers would challenge those valuations, and federal regulators would need an enormous enforcement operation to administer the system.

Nixon argues that fewer than 1,000 Americans would pay the tax and that it could raise trillions of dollars without increasing taxes on anyone worth less than $1 billion. She connects that revenue to Medicare for All, universal child care, affordable housing and other benefits.

Politically, that sounds painless: tax a tiny group of extremely wealthy people and provide benefits to everyone else.

Economically, it is not that simple. Capital does not remain stationary while politicians tax it. Billionaires can restructure ownership, transfer assets, relocate investments, borrow against holdings or move themselves and portions of their wealth into more favorable jurisdictions. Congress would have to impose complex rules to prevent avoidance, and those rules would inevitably reach trusts, businesses, investment structures and financial transactions beyond a simple list of billionaires.

The proposal would also give Washington a direct annual claim on privately accumulated assets. That represents a major departure from the traditional federal tax system and raises constitutional, administrative and economic questions that a campaign revenue estimate cannot resolve.

Nixon’s proposal nevertheless reveals her governing philosophy with unusual clarity: she does not believe concentrated wealth belongs exclusively in private hands when families cannot afford basic services. She believes the federal government should take a portion of that wealth each year and redirect it toward public benefits.

However, wealth tied up in businesses, equipment, research and investment does not simply sit in a vault. It finances enterprises, supports employment and supplies the capital needed for expansion. Taxing accumulated assets can force owners to sell holdings or remove money from productive uses, even when the underlying business has not generated equivalent taxable income.

Nixon’s agenda extends far beyond one billionaire tax

Nixon’s economic platform does not stop with taxing billionaires. She also supports Medicare for All, universal child care, a $25 federal minimum wage and aggressive federal intervention in housing costs.

Each proposal offers an easily understood benefit. The government would cover medical care, subsidize child care, mandate higher pay and restrain housing expenses. The difficult questions concern cost, availability and unintended consequences.

A $25 federal minimum wage would affect Jacksonville differently from New York, San Francisco or Washington. Large national corporations might absorb the increase, automate more positions or raise prices. Small restaurants, retailers, landscaping companies, farms and service businesses operating on narrow margins would have fewer options. Some would reduce hours, eliminate entry-level jobs, increase prices or close.

The wage mandate would benefit employees who kept their positions and hours. It could hurt younger, less experienced and lower-skilled workers if employers decided that those positions could not generate enough value to justify the mandated cost.

Universal child care would relieve a genuine burden on working families, but Washington would still have to collect the money, determine reimbursement rates and attract enough qualified providers. A federal promise does not automatically produce more classrooms, teachers or caregivers. If reimbursement rules discourage private providers or federal standards raise operating costs, families could receive a nominal entitlement without gaining timely access to actual care.

Medicare for All raises an even larger question. Nixon describes health care as a right that government should guarantee. The proposal could eliminate many premiums and deductibles, but it would not eliminate the cost of doctors, hospitals, medicine or administration. It would transfer those costs into federal taxation and place Washington in control of reimbursement and coverage on a scale the country has never attempted.

The recurring pattern is clear: Nixon identifies a real affordability problem and assigns the federal government responsibility for solving it. That expands Washington’s authority, spending commitments and dependence on higher taxation.

Moody voted to extend the Republican tax agenda

Moody offers voters a traditional conservative alternative. She opposes a wealth tax, supports lower tax rates and argues that businesses and families make better economic decisions than federal agencies.

In 2025, she voted for the Republican reconciliation law that extended major portions of the 2017 tax reductions, increased border-security spending and revised Medicaid, food-assistance and other federal programs. Moody described her vote as preventing a roughly $4 trillion tax increase, creating more job opportunities and restoring financial common sense.

The legislation prevented scheduled tax-rate increases and preserved more favorable treatment for businesses and many households. The Congressional Budget Office also projected that its incentives would increase labor supply, private investment and economic output, particularly during its earlier years.

That supports Moody’s fundamental argument: lower marginal tax rates encourage people to work, invest and expand businesses.

Yet conservatives should not ignore the other side of the ledger. The enacted law reduced projected federal revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion while reducing direct spending by about $1.1 trillion. Using its standard January 2025 baseline, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law would increase cumulative federal deficits by approximately $3.4 trillion from 2025 through 2034.

That is not fiscal balance.

Republicans can reasonably argue that allowing scheduled tax provisions to expire would have functioned as a tax increase. They can also argue that economic growth will recover part of the lost revenue. CBO itself projected a modest increase in economic output.

But the same analysis found that the growth effects would not erase the law’s deficit cost. More federal borrowing would increase interest expenses and eventually crowd out some private investment.

Moody therefore has a stronger case than Nixon on taxation, incentives and private-sector growth, but she still faces a conservative accountability test: What spending will she actually reduce enough to stop the debt from growing?

Washington cannot claim fiscal responsibility merely by cutting taxes while financing existing government through borrowing. Debt represents deferred taxation. Eventually taxpayers pay through higher taxes, reduced services, inflationary pressure or mounting interest costs.

Work requirements expose another fundamental divide

The candidates also disagree over whether able-bodied adults receiving public benefits should meet work or participation requirements.

Moody supports stronger eligibility verification and work requirements in programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Conservatives argue that public assistance should protect people who genuinely need help without creating permanent dependence or paying benefits to ineligible recipients.

Nixon and national progressives argue that work requirements frequently remove eligible people because of paperwork, unstable work schedules, caregiving responsibilities or administrative mistakes. They describe the resulting savings as benefit cuts rather than efficiency.

Both effects can occur. Strong verification can remove ineligible recipients and encourage workforce participation. Poor implementation can also remove eligible people who fail to navigate the reporting system.

The philosophical difference remains unmistakable. Nixon treats access to health care, food and other essential services primarily as a public guarantee. Moody treats assistance as a safety net that should include eligibility rules, personal responsibility and incentives to return to work when possible.

Which agenda better addresses Florida’s affordability crisis?

Nixon has a political advantage when she talks about economic pain. Florida residents face high housing costs, property insurance premiums, medical expenses, child-care bills and everyday prices. Telling those voters that the economy is growing does not answer the monthly bill sitting on the kitchen table.

If economic growth benefits asset owners while younger and working-class families cannot purchase homes, afford insurance or raise children, voters will look for a more interventionist alternative.

But Nixon’s solution asks Washington to assume still more control over wages, health care, child care, housing and private wealth. The federal government already spends far more than it collects, carries enormous debt and regularly fails to demonstrate that larger appropriations produce proportionally better results.

Creating another universal entitlement does not repeal scarcity. Price controls do not build houses. A wage mandate does not increase every employer’s productivity. A government health plan does not create additional doctors. Taxing an asset does not guarantee that Washington will spend the revenue effectively.

Moody’s market-oriented approach better recognizes how businesses, investment and employment create the tax base from which every public program draws. Her support for lower taxes also leaves individuals and businesses with greater control over the money they earn.

Yet Moody and Republicans must do more than invoke economic freedom. They must confront spending, debt, corporate favoritism and tax provisions that reward politically connected industries. A government that borrows trillions while extending tax advantages cannot credibly lecture families about living within their means.

The choice

Nixon sees economic inequality as evidence that capitalism requires a much stronger federal counterweight. She would tax billionaire wealth, expand public benefits, mandate higher wages and intervene directly in major household expenses.

Moody sees government expansion as a threat to economic freedom and growth. She would preserve lower tax rates, require greater accountability in benefit programs and rely more heavily on private investment, work and competition.

Moody then offers that economic freedom, private ownership and incentives to work and invest have produced more durable prosperity than government redistribution and price controls.

But Moody’s case will remain incomplete until fiscal conservatism once again includes both sides of the federal ledger. Lower taxes encourage growth, but uncontrolled borrowing undermines it. Florida voters should ask both candidates the question Washington routinely avoids: Who will pay?

Nixon’s answer is straightforward: billionaires, corporations and affluent Americans should pay substantially more so government can guarantee more benefits.

Moody’s answer relies on lower taxes, economic growth, work requirements and reduced government waste. That approach preserves greater freedom and offers stronger incentives—but only if Congress actually restrains spending rather than charging the difference to future taxpayers.

This first installment of Nixon vs. Moody: The Choice, Issue by Issue presents the economic divide beneath the campaign. One candidate wants Washington to redistribute more wealth in the name of economic security. The other wants Americans to keep more of what they earn and place greater trust in markets, work and private investment.

That is not a minor policy disagreement. It is a choice between two fundamentally different definitions of economic fairness—and two very different futures for the country.