That paper is looking at the top 1%. Buy, borrow, die is the realm of the top 0.1 % or 0.01%.

Are you saying that billionaires are actually realizing capital gains to afford yachts, private jets, and mansions?

"Focusing on the top 1 %, while total borrowing is substantial, new borrowing each year is fairly small (1–2 % of economic income) compared to their new unrealized gains"

"1 % of wealth-holders (above $14 million in 2022)"

1-2% of $14,000,000 is $140,000 to $280,000 a year. The median personal income is $45,140. They are benefiting to the tune of 3-6 times the median American income.

1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year (44x median income). That is substantial. That their wealth is growing so fast that that is fairly small to them and makes the median American income seem small doesn't sell me.

How is an economic benefit of 3-44X the median income insignificant? I would love to benefit anually by that 'insignificant' amount. By this argument why should we not then exclude all economic income below $140,000 to $2,000,000 from taxation? Since it's 'insignificant'.