

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Too much money contorts any human being," said one critic of the Amazon founder.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos drew ridicule on Wednesday after he claimed that doubling the amount of taxes he pays wouldn't be beneficial to society.
During an interview on CNBC, journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Bezos about arguments made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that the super-rich have lower effective tax rates than average Americans given how much of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and not traditional income earned through actual labor.
"I pay billions of dollars in taxes," replied Bezos, whom Forbes estimates is worth $267 billion. "If people want me to pay billions more, then let's have that debate. But don't pretend, you know, that that's going to solve the problem. You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens, I promise you."
Bezos on CNBC: "You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens. I promise you." pic.twitter.com/ocbf34XZhA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 20, 2026
A 2021 investigation by Pro Publica found that Bezos' effective tax rate of less than 1% between 2014 and 2018, as he paid a total of $973 million in taxes over a period in which his net worth grew by $99 billion.
As explained by the Institute of Taxation and Policy (ITEP), this effective tax rate was "significantly lower" than the tax rate paid by middle-class Americans over that period.
"There were multiple years where Bezos paid nothing at all in income taxes," ITEP noted. "While having billions of dollars of wealth, Bezos consistently avoided income tax by offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions, all while Amazon stock was rapidly rising."
Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros in Colorado suggested Bezos had a point about taxation—"because we tax income, not wealth.
"Bezos takes out a tiny salary, pays the income tax, and lives off loans borrowed against his stocks, basically tax-free," said Kiros. "They all do this and now 935 billionaires hold more wealth than 170 million Americans. It’s time to tax wealth."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, took issue with Bezos' claim that doubling his taxes would produce no benefits.
"Jeff Bezos paid $500 million for his super-yacht and $75 million for his super-yacht’s mini-yacht—both of which he’s allowed to write off on his taxes," she wrote in a social media post. "That alone would cover $180 in classroom supplies for every public school teacher in the US."
Craig Harrington, research director at Media Matters for America, marveled at how out of touch Bezos seemed to be.
"There’s a funny thing about being uber wealthy," he observed. "They get so rich that they lose all sense of place, they essentially manifest as stateless people with no connection to or understanding of the world outside their private airports and resplendent villas."
Journalist and screenwriter David Simon expressed a similar view of the impact of immense wealth on Bezos' psyche.
"Too much money contorts any human being," Simon wrote. "And what was once a man is now, for the rest of the world, a fully metastasized cancer."
Author Hemant Mehta, meanwhile, simply wondered if Bezos "auditioning to be the next Bond villain."
Some 17 local governments, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) details in a just-released report, are now levying a “mansion tax” on the sale of high-end residential properties.
Back in 1928, the bold and brassy mobster Al Capone spent $40,000—about $851,000 in today’s dollars—on “a stately Spanish Colonial-style villa” that sat on an isle right off Miami’s coast.
Local historic preservationists would end up cherishing that villa for years after Capone’s 1947 passing. They apparently didn’t cherish it enough. The property’s current corporate owner demolished Capone’s villa last summer and now has the empty lot on sale for $23.9 million.
Meanwhile, in nearby Miami Beach, deep pockets are buzzing about a $125-million “two duplex penthouse” that’s going to be topping a brand-new 15-story luxury tower. The co-developer on the project expects no problems selling off his tower’s 30 opulent abodes. And why should he? Luxury dwellings are selling quite nicely in America’s most fashionable rich people-friendly neighborhoods.
Proposals to either enact or expand mansion taxes have so far passed into law a remarkable 86% of the times they’ve appeared on local ballots.
Greater Miami—in 2023’s last quarter alone—saw its typical luxury-home sale price jump nearly 9% over the year before. In the heart of California’s Silicon Valley, last-quarter prices for luxury dwellings in 2023 rose 9.5% over 2022. The sellers of those dwellings pocketed a median $4,559,500 after having their homes on the market for just 15 days.
In New York City, luxury realtors are flashing even broader smiles. One Manhattan property sold for $75 million in 2023’s last quarter, with another topping $65 million and still another grabbing close to $50 million. Out west, Colorado’s Aspen registered two last-quarter sales in the nation’s top 10, one at $60 million and another at a mere $40 mil.
What do deep pockets spend their time doing once they’ve closed on one of these super deals? They start concentrating, The Wall Street Journal reports, on their closets. Today’s rich are hiring “closet designers” and then throwing “closet reveal” parties to share their favorite new storage spots with friends and family. One elite closet designer, Design Galleria CEO Matthew Quinn, has collected over $1 million “for a two-story closet” that features “both an elevator and a spray-tan booth.”
An outrageous display of out-of-control conspicuous consumption? Sure. But the proud owner of that manse with the two-story closet also figures to get that million-plus back—and then some—when that luxury abode goes back on the market. The demand for housing fit for billionaires is simply exploding. Four decades ago, the United States hosted just 13 billionaires. Now we have some 735.
Fabulous mansions, in other words, figure to be fetching top dollar deep into the foreseeable future. Could these sales possibly have any redeeming social value for the rest of us? A growing corps of progressive local lawmakers believe they most certainly could.
Some 17 local governments, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) details in a just-released report, are now levying a “mansion tax” on the sale of high-end residential properties. Most all of these levies have gone into effect since 2018.
The mansion sale levies enacted so far, ITEP researchers calculate, are currently raising “nearly $3 billion” in annual revenue. Big cities are collecting the bulk of that revenue. In New York, home to the original modern mansion tax, luxury home sales over $25 million face a special 4.58% tax. San Francisco’s top tax rate on over $25-million transactions sits at 6%.
Other cities are taxing mansion sales at more modest levels. The city in the heart of Silicon Valley, San Jose, subjects mansion sales over $10 million to a 1.5% tax.
Still other cities are looking overseas to nations like Denmark for their mansion tax inspiration. Local lawmakers in the District of Columbia, for instance, are considering a higher “new marginal tax bracket on homes worth more than $2 million.” Across most of the United States today, by contrast, “flat-rate” property taxes currently rule. The predictable result: Low- and middle-income homeowners pay a higher share of their income in property taxes than America’s most affluent.
Moves to change that reality, the new Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Local Mansion Taxes report suggests, would be enormously popular. Proposals to either enact or expand mansion taxes have so far passed into law a remarkable 86% of the times they’ve appeared on local ballots.
But those appearances remain relatively rare. That could change. You could help change it. How best to begin that change effort? How about emailing your favorite local lawmakers a copy of ITEP’s fascinating new deep dive into what could become our mansion tax future.
We could better tax the rich men near and far from Richmond by getting rid of the special low tax rate on capital gains income and making it the same as taxes on work.
Oliver Anthony’s smash country hit “Rich Men North of Richmond” has gone through an entire story arc in just a few weeks. When conservatives heard the song’s anger, apparent ire toward northerners, and lyrics punching down at people on welfare, some lauded it as an anthem for our times — helping send it to the top of the Billboard charts, and inspiring Fox News to reference it in the first question at last week’s Republican presidential debate.
But Anthony changed the narrative late last week by saying: “It was funny seeing my song at the presidential debate ’cause it’s like, I wrote that song about those people.” He also tweeted “I. Don’t. Support. Either. Side. Politically. Not the left, not the right. I’m about supporting people and restoring local communities.”
Fair enough. Let’s leave the song, particularly the parts about welfare and obesity, behind. But lines like “I’ve been sellin’ my soul, workin’ all day, overtime hours for bullshit pay” and “your dollar ain’t shit and it’s taxed to no end ’cause of rich men north of Richmond” strike a truthful chord. For those of us at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy who examine tax policy through the lens of how much working (and poor) people are taxed compared to rich men north (and south) of Richmond, it’s hard not to take this as a jumping off point to amplify some important facts.
Oliver Anthony - Rich Men North Of Richmondwww.youtube.com
In Virginia, where Anthony is from, middle-class, working-class and poor families all pay a larger share of their income in state and local taxes than households in Virginia’s top 1 percent. That’s because the state relies more on sales taxes, which poor and working families disproportionately shoulder, and less on income taxes that better target the rich. Virginia lawmakers also let multinational corporations stash their earnings in tax havens to avoid state taxes, something local businesses can’t get away with. The tax laws in most other states create the same problems.
There is a better way. While Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently pushed for more high-income and business tax cuts, some Virginians are trying to increase what the wealthiest pay and redirect resources toward families with children. And some states, like Minnesota, already have a system that does more for kids and communities by taxing rich people and corporations.
I’ll admit I’ve been humming lines from Oliver’s song, but what sticks in my head more is the response from labor balladeer Billy Bragg, who’s been refining his political and economic views for decades.
Nationwide, income from wealth gets a special lower tax rate, so someone whose money comes from their big investment portfolio pays less than someone who earns the same amount by working. And don’t get me started on the breaks available to the uber-rich, whose stock portfolios balloon until they pass them on to their children without anyone ever paying anything on the increase. Finally, wealthy corporations often dodge federal taxes — in 2020, we found that 55 of the nation’s most profitable corporations paid zero in federal income taxes.
We could better tax the rich men near and far from Richmond by getting rid of the special low tax rate on capital gains income and making it the same as taxes on work; by cracking down on tax avoidance by multinational corporations; and by turning state tax codes right side up, replacing sales taxes with new income tax brackets for earnings over $150,000, over $250,000, and over $1 million. This would generate the money needed to deliver more for working families — from child care, to health care, to affordable college. And it would raise that money from those who derive the most benefit from capitalism.
I’ll admit I’ve been humming lines from Oliver’s song, but what sticks in my head more is the response from labor balladeer Billy Bragg, who’s been refining his political and economic views for decades. Bragg’s new song, “Rich Men Earning North of a Million,” taps proud musical traditions that give voice to economic hardship, from spirituals to the blues, bluegrass, country, rock and hip-hop.
Billy Bragg - Rich Men Earning North of a Millionwww.youtube.com
I’ve added Bragg’s newest to my playlist. And my hunch is that Anthony wouldn’t like me citing his song any more than he liked the Republicans doing so. But I can’t ignore the anger of someone working for “bullshit” pay who is pissed off at the power that rich men have in our political system and in our tax code. I’ll take the sentiments from both musical voices to honor working class narratives, channel feelings of disempowerment, and push for a more economically just country. Starting with better taxing rich men, wherever they live.