SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
"The capture of our global economy by a privileged few has reached heights once considered unimaginable," said the executive director of Oxfam International.
An Oxfam report published Monday shows that the combined wealth of the world's billionaires surged three times faster in 2024 than the previous year, rising by $2 trillion as efforts to combat global poverty remained stagnant.
The findings come hours before the U.S. is set to inaugurate President-elect Donald Trump, a billionaire whose campaign for a second White House term was backed by the world's richest man and whose proposed Cabinet is stacked with billionaires. The report was also released as business and political elites gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum summit.
According to Oxfam, an average of nearly four new billionaires emerged every week in 2024, and billionaires saw their wealth grow by roughly $5.7 billion per day.
"The capture of our global economy by a privileged few has reached heights once considered unimaginable," said Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International's executive director. "The failure to stop billionaires is now spawning soon-to-be trillionaires. Not only has the rate of billionaire wealth accumulation accelerated—by three times—but so too has their power."
"The crown jewel of this oligarchy is a billionaire president, backed and bought by the world's richest man Elon Musk, running the world's largest economy," Behar added. "We present this report as a stark wake-up call that ordinary people the world over are being crushed by the enormous wealth of a tiny few."
"Untaxed billions of dollars in inheritance is an affront to fairness, perpetuating a new aristocracy where wealth and power stays locked in the hands of a few."
Oxfam's new report—titled Takers, Not Makers—estimates that 36% of billionaire wealth is inherited and 18% stems from monopoly power accrued by corporate behemoths such as Amazon. Every billionaire under the age of 30 inherited their wealth, according to Oxfam.
Another 6% of global billionaire wealth can be attributed to "crony sources" such as "lobbying, funding political campaigns, and creating revolving doors between the private sector and civil service," the new report finds.
All told, "most billionaire wealth is taken, not earned—60% comes from either inheritance, cronyism and corruption, or monopoly power," the report estimates.
"The ultra-rich like to tell us that getting rich takes skill, grit, and hard work. But the truth is most wealth is taken, not made," said Behar. "So many of the so-called 'self-made' are actually heirs to vast fortunes, handed down through generations of unearned privilege. Untaxed billions of dollars in inheritance is an affront to fairness, perpetuating a new aristocracy where wealth and power stays locked in the hands of a few."
If current trends persist, Oxfam estimates that the world is on track to see at least five trillionaires within a decade.
"Last year we predicted the first trillionaire could emerge within a decade, but this shocking acceleration of wealth means that the world is now on course for at least five," said Anna Marriott, Oxfam's inequality policy lead. "The global economic system is broken, wholly unfit for purpose as it enables and perpetuates this explosion of riches, while nearly half of humanity continues to live in poverty."
In the face of such staggering wealth accumulation at the very top, Oxfam called on governments to abolish tax havens, tax the inheritances of the ultra-rich, more strictly regulate corporations to "ensure they pay living wages and cap CEO pay," and provide debt relief to economically struggling nations to "end the flow of wealth from South to North."
"Taken together, today's levels of extreme wealth concentration are based not on merit," said Oxfam. "These are takers, and not makers."
For taxing the rich, we currently rely on an income tax based on adjusted gross income as our primary vehicle. That isn’t working.
The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation has long functioned as an apologist for America’s deepest pockets. Analysts at the foundation have spent years assuring us that our wealthiest are paying far more than their fair tax share—in the face of a reality that has our richest aggressively growing their share of the wealth all Americans are creating.
This past August, the Biden administration’s Treasury Department commissioned a new study that documented just how little of their wealth America’s richest are actually paying in taxes. Last month, the Tax Foundation responded with a predictable critique. Our super rich, insists this new Tax Foundation analysis, are still today paying “super amounts of taxes.”
But tax data, as the study Treasury officials released last summer shows, tell a far different story.
If Congress does not at some point soon raise what our ultra-rich pay in taxes as a percentage of their wealth, our grandchildren could well be living in a nation where our richest 0.01% hold half our nation’s wealth, quintuple their current share.
This Treasury study—led by an academic team that included the widely respected economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman—spotlighted a wide variety of stats on the incomes America’s 183.7 million taxpayer units reported and the taxes they paid in 2019.
The report devoted special attention to how much in taxes the nation’s most affluent that year paid, breaking these taxpayers down into wealth categories ranging from our richest 10% to our richest 0.001%. To drill down even deeper, the report tapped annual Forbes 400 data to calculate comparable stats for those households that sit at our nation’s even higher wealth summit.
And what did the Treasury report show? At that summit, the nation’s richest 0.0002%—a group that roughly corresponds in size to the Forbes 400—paid in 2019 federal and state taxes the equivalent of less than 1% of their wealth. The richest of America’s rich, the top 0.00005% of taxpayers, paid in federal and state taxes an amount that equaled just 0.75%.
All these rich did, to be sure, pay some foreign taxes as well. But the richest of America’s rich, even after taking these foreign taxes into account, still paid in taxes less than 1% of their wealth, as this charting of the Treasury Department stats shows.
The Tax Foundation’s just-published response to the Treasury data doesn’t dispute the accuracy of any of these figures. The Tax Foundation claims instead that the Treasury report confirms that America’s rich “pay more than one-third of their annual income in federal taxes and more than 45% when state and local taxes are included.”
Indeed, the Tax Foundation adds, the total tax burden on the nation’s super wealthy can, with foreign taxes paid taken into account, run “upwards of 60% of their annual income.”
The key word here: income. The Treasury study, the Tax Foundation charges, “classifies taxpayers according to an estimate of their wealth rather than their income, with the intention of showing that the rich pay very little in taxes.” The rich, the foundation concludes, “are not undertaxed relative to their annual income.”
This Tax Foundation’s claim begs some obvious questions: What yardstick should we use to consider whether our wealthiest are paying an appropriate amount of tax? If our wealthiest, after paying their taxes, are still watching their personal wealth grow at a higher growth rate than the nation’s total wealth, are these wealthy paying their “fair tax share”?
The annual Forbes 400 may be the best place to start our answer to that question. Between 2014 and 2024, the wealth of the Forbes 400 increased from $2.29 trillion to $5.4 trillion. That translates to an annual growth rate of 8.96%, net of taxes and living expenses. Over the same period, America’s total household wealth grew 6.8% annually, increasing from $79.94 trillion to $154.39 trillion.
At those 2014-2024 rates of growth, the share of the nation’s wealth the Forbes 400 holds would double every 35 years. Over the past 42 years, the Forbes 400 share of the nation’s wealth has actually grown at an even faster rate, nearly quadrupling over that four-decade-plus span.
The wealth of our wealthiest has no natural limit. If Congress does not at some point soon raise what our ultra-rich pay in taxes as a percentage of their wealth, our grandchildren could well be living in a nation where our richest 0.01% hold half our nation’s wealth, quintuple their current share.
What level of taxation would be required to stop America’s wealth from concentrating so furiously? To close the gap between the growth rate for the wealth of the richest Americans and our nation’s overall growth in total wealth, current combined federal and state taxes on those at the top would have to rise substantially, at least tripling.
None of these figures should come as a surprise. We’ve known for decades now about the under-taxation of America’s billionaires, a reality that rests on what may be the single most glaring flaw in America’s tax system: “adjusted gross income.” The Internal Revenue Code uses this “AGI” as the starting point for calculating federal income tax due. But “adjusted gross income”—for America’s richest taxpayers—has become and continues to be an entirely meaningless figure.
Consider 2019, the year the Treasury study this past August most closely highlighted. The S&P 500 stock index that year rose 30% between the opening of trading in January and the last trading day in December. For Americans at our nation’s economic summit, that made for a wonderful year. These wealthy derive nearly all their income from their investments.
As we move up the economic scale, the wealth growth of the ultra-rich follows a clear pattern: The economic income—that is, the rate of wealth growth—of the topmost group increases as the size of the group shrinks.
Between 2014 and 2024, for example, the wealth of the 92 richest Americans increased from $1.4 trillion to $3.4 trillion, a jump that translates to an annual growth rate just over 9%. Over that same period, the wealth of remaining 308 in the Forbes 400 grew at a rate of 8.82%. By contrast, in 2019, the average adjusted gross incomes of the top 92 taxpayers and the next 275 taxpayers stood at 1.66% and 3.11% of their average wealth.
In other words, the higher up we go on the wealth ladder, the higher the rate of wealth growth, as we would expect. But adjusted gross income, expressed as a percentage of wealth, decreases. For America’s wealthiest, adjusted gross income bears no relationship to actual economic income. Any estimate of income that places, as the AGI does, the income of the 92 richest Americans at only 1.66% of their wealth rates as essentially useless.
To sharpen this picture even more, consider the increase in tax on America’s wealthiest 367 that would be needed to freeze the increase in their share of our nation’s wealth. Avoiding a further increase in the concentration of the nation’s wealth would require an overall increase in the rate of taxes our top 367 pay to more than 150% of their adjusted gross income. If we limited their overall tax rate to a mere 100% of their adjusted gross income, their share of the country’s wealth would continue to increase.
Where does that leave us? For taxing the rich, we currently rely on an income tax based on adjusted gross income as our primary vehicle. That isn’t working. If we’re going to achieve fair share taxation of the rich, we need to scrap AGI and develop a measure of income that accurately reflects their true economic income. Otherwise, we need to tax wealth directly.
Economists estimated that under the GOP nominee's proposal, the "share of national income going to the top 5% would increase by around 1.6%, while the share of the bottom 50% would fall by roughly 4.8%."
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's proposal to further reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% would make the bottom half of the nation's income distribution poorer while boosting the fortunes of those at the very top, according to an analysis published Thursday by economists at American University.
The analysis, released just over a month before the high-stakes November 5 election, projects the hypothetical macroeconomic and distributional impacts of corporate tax rate plans put forth by Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. Harris has called for increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%.
If implemented, the economists found, Trump's plan would "modestly reduce" the nation's gross domestic product (GDP), decrease government revenue, and "significantly increase inequality," given that wealthier households "are the primary owners of corporate stocks" that would benefit from the former president's tax cuts.
The "share of national income going to the top 5% would increase by around 1.6%, while the share of the bottom 50% would fall by roughly 4.8%," the analysis estimates.
Harris' plan, by contrast, would "mildly" raise U.S. GDP, increase federal revenue, and "decrease inequality, reducing the share of income earned by the top 5% of the distribution by about 1% and increasing the share of income earned by the bottom 50% of the distribution by about 4.7%, compared to current policy."
The analysis came a day after the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that the richest 1% saw their share of the nation's wealth grow to 27% between 1989 and 2022 while families in the bottom half of the distribution held just 6% of the country's wealth in both 1989 and 2022—a wealth gap that further slashing corporate taxes would exacerbate.
Trump's call to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% was the "centerpiece" of an address he delivered last month at the Economic Club of New York, as Bloombergreported at the time.
When Trump took office in 2017, the statutory corporate tax rate was 35%. Later that year, Trump and congressional Republicans rammed through an unpopular tax-cut package that slashed the corporate rate to 21% and led to a surge in tax avoidance. The law has been hugely regressive, delivering major benefits to the rich and very little to the working class.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% would hand roughly $50 billion in annual tax cuts to the 100 largest and most profitable U.S. companies, according to a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.