SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tax the rich
From Taxing the Rich to Defending Unions, the Best Defense Against Trump Will Be Offense
The super rich who backed the Republican president-elect must think they have us exactly where they want us. Now is the best time to turn the tables.
Nov 15, 2024
With Donald Trump about to re-enter the White House and his sidekicks about to assume control over Congress, America’s progressives are once again shifting — to playing defense. But the best defense, as one old football adage suggests, almost always turns out to be a good offense.
In the coming Trump redux, can we progressives take that adage to heart? Dare we go on offense and maybe even snatch a victory or two? We certainly can — if we start pushing for what the vast majority of Americans so want to see: an America where the really rich don’t run the show.
How much our richest run that show has never been more obvious. Campaign spending figures help tell that story.
Back at the beginning of our 21st century, out-of-state contributions to House and Senate races, be they from political action committees or individuals, funneled about the same amount of cash to candidates as in-state donors. These PACs and individuals faced strict limits on how much they could contribute politically. PACs, for their part, could accept no more than $5,000 from individuals each year and give no more than $5,000 directly to a candidate in each election cycle.
Enter the Super PAC. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision essentially gave America’s wealthiest and the corporations they run free rein to spend as much as they want to boost the candidates they find most appealing. This green light for what became known as “Super PACs” gave America’s richest the legal capacity to cement in place a new and “improved” plutocracy.
Dare we go on offense and maybe even snatch a victory or two? We certainly can — if we start pushing for what the vast majority of Americans so want to see: an America where the really rich don’t run the show.
In the 2024 election cycle alone, former AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer points out, Super PACs and related groups have spent seven times more on the candidates they support than those candidates have raised “from individuals in their own states.”
And that spending is coming overwhelmingly from the richest of America’s rich. In this year’s presidential race, according to the latest pre-election stats available, some 60 percent of all outlays on Donald Trump’s behalf were coming from the Super PAC universe, and 90 percent of that universe’s spending, Michael Podhorzer adds, was coming from the top donor 1 percent.
Just who from the ranks of our super rich are doing all this spending? We don’t exactly know for sure. Spending by outside contributors this election cycle, researchers from the campaign funding watchdog OpenSecrets reported on Election Day, hit an all-time record $4.5 billion, “with more than half of that spending coming from groups that do not fully disclose the source of their funding.”
America’s wealthiest “have always weighed in on politics,” as the business journal Forbes understatedly noted the day after Election Day, but their capacity to make a difference has significantly “ramped up.” These wealthy “can now make unlimited donations,” and those donations without limits have been making each election “more expensive than the last.”
And billionaires like things that way. Exulted crypto billionaire Tyler Winklevoss just after Trump’s triumph: “We are on the brink of a new American Renaissance.”
But billionaires today have an electoral influence that goes far beyond their hefty campaign contributions. In today’s social media environment, these rich can speak directly to potential voters. Between October 1 and Election Day, a Forbes analysis shows, America’s 200 richest billionaires posted over 2,000 comments on this year’s elections. Those comments gained over 10 billion reads.
And where did we end up, after all this billionaire spending and speaking out? We ended up with an exasperated electorate. Voter turnout in 2024, the political scientist Peter Dreier points out, ended up down more than 16 million votes, with Trump pulling over 2 million fewer ballots than in 2020 and Kamala Harris collecting over 14 million fewer than Joe Biden pocketed in 2020.
That turnout for the Democrats, Dreier argues, reflects the continuing weakness of America’s labor movement, despite the isolated labor organizing triumphs of recent years. Back in the mid-20th century, unions represented over a third of all U.S. private-sector workers. Last year, only 6 percent of private sector workers carried union cards.
If today’s union membership rate stood at a mere 20 percent of all workers, Dreier contends, “Harris would have won” because unions would have been able to reach more working people directly — including those “who might be gun owners or evangelical Christians” — “about why to vote” for pro-worker candidates.
Three generations ago, in mid-20th century America, high unionization rates kept in place World War II’s high federal tax rates on the nation’s highest incomes, rates that would run over 90 percent on top-bracket income throughout the 1950s. That twofer of a strong labor movement and high taxes on our nation’s richest would go on to nurture a political climate open to greater equality in every sphere.
Today’s richest, by contrast, pay taxes at rates that amount to a tiny fraction of what they pocket, and vast swatches of the American economy have essentially no union presence at all. Trump and his deep-pocketed pals can flourish and thrive in this environment. The task for the rest of us: to change it.
Can we win that fight? We can. Just look at the numbers.
Earlier this year, polling found that 71 percent of all likely voters — and even 53 percent of self-described Republicans — think billionaires should be paying more in taxes. Over two-thirds of the American people, Gallup reports, see themselves as union supporters. Even more Americans — 80 percent — favor higher taxes on corporations with CEOs who make over 50 times what their workers make. Top CEOs today averagehundreds of times what their workers earn.
Our super rich are now celebrating what they see as a glorious future. Let’s put them on the defensive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economists, Advocates Call On G20 Ministers to 'Make History' and Tax Superrich
"There are 16 people in the world who—if 99% of their wealth vanished overnight—would still be billionaires," said one campaigner. "We must tax the rich."
Nov 12, 2024
Ahead of the G20 Leader's Summit, scheduled to take place over two days next week in Rio de Janeiro, international economists on Tuesday were calling on economic ministers to take an historic step toward reducing global inequality by approving a tax on extreme wealth.
"Tax the rich" has been a rallying cry among economic justice advocates for years, but with the richest 1% of people now owning more wealth than the bottom 95%, some of the world's top economists and finance ministers in recent months have joined the call for a fair taxation system that demands the wealthiest households pay their fair share.
Jenny Ricks, general secretary of the Fight Equality Alliance (FIA), pointed out that taxing the richest people in the world would barely dent their fortunes—but for millions of people across the Global South, it could mean the difference between whether healthcare and public services are provided to them or not.
"There are 16 people in the world who—if 99% of their wealth vanished overnight—would still be billionaires," said Ricks. "We must tax the rich, end austerity, and cancel debt to ensure healthcare, education, and other essential public services for billions in the Global South. A growing movement of millions across the world is tired of the G20 upholding a broken system. A first step forward would be supporting an ambitious global deal to tax the superrich."
The five richest men in the world have doubled their wealth since 2020, while 60% of people have become poorer. The richest 1.5% of people in the world now control nearly half the world's wealth.
FIA warned that with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump scheduled to take office in January, global finance ministers must take action to rein in the "era of the billionaire" before leaders like Trump lavish their billionaire donors with more tax breaks, decimating public services.
"Countries are on track to lose $4.8 trillion in tax to tax havens over the next 10 years," said Nathalie Beghin, co-director of the Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos in Brazil. "Such unchecked tax evasion perpetuates inequality and undermines the foundation of sustainable economic development. At this historic moment, G20 leaders must demand the changes needed to transform an outdated, unfair system that's no longer fit for purpose—if it ever was."
Beghin, an economist, called on G20 leaders to support the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC), which would "tackle illicit financial flows, rediscuss inefficient tax expenditures, [and] tax transnationals and high net worth individuals."
"If Brazil could tax its superrich, as a consequence of a global commitment, the country could stop austerity measures and implement social, environmental and adaptation policies to fight hunger, poverty, and climate change," said Beghin. "Making big companies and very wealthy individuals pay their fair share is also fundamental to tackle inequality."
At a meeting in Rio de Janeiro in July, global finance ministers agreed on the need to develop a global tax system in which the richest people in the world pay a higher tax rate—despite the protests of the United States delegation.
Zinnia Quirós Chacón, a campaigner with Oxfam International, called the upcoming G20 meeting "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make history."
"For the first time ever, world leaders are close to agreeing on a global plan to tax the superrich," she said.
Oxfam and other groups participating in the Say It With Me Now campaign—an initiative aimed at showing the widespread support for a global wealth tax—posted a video on social media showing supporters around the world asking the G20 ministers to take decisive action.
"Tax the superrich and make the world a better place for everyone," said the supporters in the video. "They won't even notice anyway."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Just the Traceable Money': $2 Billion Pumped Into 2024 Election by Billionaire Families
"It's no secret that political spending is a huge way for billionaires to rig the system to their liking," said Americans for Tax Fairness. "Enough is enough."
Oct 29, 2024
A new analysis out Tuesday shows that 150 of the nation's wealthiest families have poured nearly $2 billion into this year's U.S. election—the latest evidence bolstering calls for new taxes on the super rich and an end to unlimited campaign spending.
The new report from Americans for Tax Fairness, published Tuesday, shows how spending by 150 of the richest families in the U.S. has smashed campaign spending records, with $700 million more spent than the $1.2 billion that wealthy donors poured into the 2020 campaign.
Republicans, including GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, have been the biggest beneficiary of spending by these billionaire families, including those of Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson; SpaceX and Tesla founder Elon Musk; and far-right activists Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein.
Trump "benefited from over $450 million of billionaire donations—more than three times as much as Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, who was the beneficiary of $143 million of billionaire contributions," reported ATF. "That's a 75%-25% split in Trump's favor."
Of the $1.9 billion that was spent on all federal campaigns by the richest families in the country, 72% or $1.36 billion went to Republican candidates, and 22% or $413 million went to Democrats.
The analysis was released weeks after The Associated Press and OpenSecretsreported Trump's small-dollar donations—those smaller than $200—made up fewer than a third of his contributions this election cycle, down from nearly half of his donations in 2020.
"Billionaire campaign spending on this scale drowns out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans. It is one of the most obvious and disturbing consequences of the growth of billionaire fortunes, as well as being a prime indicator that the system regulating campaign finance has collapsed," said David Kass, executive director of ATF. "We need to rein in the political power of billionaire families by better taxing them and by effectively limiting their campaign donations. Until we do both, we can only expect the influence of the super-rich over our politics and government to escalate."
Trump has made clear that he would push for policies that enrich corporations and the ultra-wealthy if he wins on November 5, promising to extend the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017, which disproportionately benefited the rich. An alleged quid pro quo offer from Trump to oil executives, promising deregulation and expanded drilling if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, is being investigated by the U.S. Senate.
Harris has endorsed President Joe Biden's proposal to tax unrealized stock gains for people whose net worth is at least $100 million, and has proposed a minimum income tax for billionaires and a rollback of Trump's tax cuts.
ATF pointed out that the billionaire families in the report have managed to spend billions of dollars on the election while spending just 0.07% of their wealth.
"The median American household is worth about $200,000, making an equivalent political donation for them just $140," said ATF. "This means that a handful of billionaires have the financial political influence of more than 13.5 million ordinary families."
The group emphasized that the $1.9 billion included in the analysis "is almost certainly an undercount," both because it doesn't account for "typical flurries of last-minute fundraising" and "because there are ways of financially supporting campaigns that are anonymous or at least hard to trace back to the original donor."
"These methods include donations to so-called 'dark money' groups that spend the money on outside efforts or in turn donate it to campaign committees; and contributions to super PACs that contribute to each other in long chains," said ATF.
"It's time we end Citizens United and start taxing billionaires on their enormous, untaxed wealth gains," said ATF, referring to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that reversed decades of campaign finance restrictions and allowed unlimited spending through super PACs.
"Our democracy and the voices of working families depend on it," said the group.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular