Fascinating timing on this article, Sharon. Now that we have the "world's smartest billionaire" slashing government spending "with a chainsaw," it's the perfect moment to reconsider our strange admiration for billionaire tax avoidance. After all, if the government is now slimmed down to just the programs and infrastructure that keeps our country functioning, there couldn’t possibly be a charitable organization more worthy of their donations — but unlike a charity, paying their taxes is now, according to their own logic, more like paying a bill of what they actually owe. Right?
For too long, we've celebrated these tax schemes as brilliant financial wizardry instead of calling them what they are - civic freeloading. Every dollar these billionaires don't pay is either coming directly from our wallets or being added to the national debt they pretend to care about. If there's truly no more government waste to cut, what excuse do they have left?
The most absurd part is how many of these same individuals brand themselves as generous philanthropists while giving away pennies compared to what they hoard. They control foundations that distribute tiny fractions of their wealth while their fortunes continue to balloon through the very tax avoidance schemes you've described.
Maybe it's time we changed how we talk about this. What if we started publicly shaming billionaires who use these tactics rather than admiring their "savvy"? What if financial media stopped reporting on "tax efficiency" as a positive and started reporting on "civic contribution" instead? What if we celebrated the wealthy who willingly pay their fair share and created social consequences for those who don't?
We have more power than we think. Public pressure has changed corporate behavior on environmental and social issues - why not taxation? Perhaps the most effective bill we can send billionaires is a social one.
Imagine a website called "SendEmTheBill.com" or something (help me with some ideas please) that tracks these ultra-wealthy individuals in a simple grid: their current net worth, what they actually paid in taxes, what they would have paid if taxed at the same rate as someone earning $100,000, and the difference between the two. Finally, a "Send Them The Bill" button that publicly challenges them to contribute this difference to pay down our national debt or fund critical public services. Those who refuse get prominently labeled as "Tax Dodgers" or "Civic Thieves" on the site's leaderboard. Or how about we revive that “Welfare Queen” slur and put it to actual good use? Social media campaigns could amplify these labels until they become part of these billionaires' public identities. Nothing motivates the image-conscious wealthy quite like public accountability. Hit em where it hurts: their legacy.
Love your ideas! Especially this: "What if financial media stopped reporting on "tax efficiency" as a positive and started reporting on "civic contribution" instead?" I have long wondered why we do not take more pride in paying taxes, since taxes are what pay for so many of the things we rely on in our daily lives. I definitely think it is time to change the way we talk about this.
Reminds me of a quote I read somewhere along the line that "real patriots pay taxes" and I think about that a lot. Sometimes I wish that, on Election Day, we could actually vote for different categories on where we wish we could send our tax money. Then the politicians wouldn't have to assume what our priorities are, because they'd have that data...and it would probably increase voter turnout too!
Allison and Natalie, thank you so much! I loved reading these comments.
I'm with you, Allison - it's bizarre how we've turned tax participation into something shameful rather than a point of civic pride. What if we flipped the script and celebrated those who contribute their share to keep our schools, roads, parks, and safety nets functioning? How would those celebrations look? People love having their names on plaques, right? How about this tribute: "This fountain is to honor Jeff Bezos, who radically decided to pay the same portion of his wealth in taxes that the average school teacher does." Maybe add some flattering statues, if they really knock it out of the park by contributing extra? More parks and more art? Sign me up.
Natalie, your ballot idea is brilliant. Even if it were just advisory rather than binding, imagine the power of having concrete data on citizen priorities. Politicians would have nowhere to hide when they ignored clear public consensus on spending priorities.
This is the kind of thinking I live for - finding seemingly intractable problems and refusing to accept defeat before we even try. Instead of throwing up our hands, we can propose bold, creative solutions that might actually move the needle.
Small ideas plus action often accomplish more than perfect solutions that never happen. Keep them coming!
Natalie I have had this same idea for years! I have always thought we should be able to "say" or direct exactly where our tax dollars go. For example we should have categories to choose from and depending on what is important to you, you get to choose where your tax dollars go instead of politicians choosing for us. Education, defense, environment, etc. Our priorities would be very clear and they wouldn't have a choice but to spend on the programs that receive the most money.
Timothy, I genuinely enjoy reading your comments here. You have such a thoughtful, expansive way of looking at things and imagining greater possibilities. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your voice and POV, it's so refreshing.
You're right that we're long overdue for a reframe. To me, SO SO many of our issues deeply stem from a narrative that to me, reads as "Individualism Over Everything." And I get how that happened, in all the ways we've been fragmented from each other.
But I'm wondering what might it look like if we shifted that? I'm curious how we could recreate/foster a collective sense of shared civic responsibility. It's reminding me of the current discourse on the "lack of community" so many of us feel, and I wonder how that's all connected. Hmmmmm -- I'm going to marinate on that today.
(Also, I'm going to start using "civic freeloading" -- what a great turn of phrase!)
Alix, you just made my day with those kind words - thank you!
Your "Individualism Over Everything" observation really hits home. I was talking with someone on Zoom yesterday (a Preamble connection!) who's struggled with this exact issue - in her current neighborhood, people have been next-door neighbors for 25+ years without knowing each other's names. While individualism is part of our national identity, it's reached absurd levels... 10-foot tall fences, garage-to-house transitions designed to avoid human contact. It's unhealthy and inevitably bleeds into our politics. It's much easier to demonize institutions if your only connections share a roof and don't directly benefit from them.
Let's both marinate on this while we trudge through whatever our lives force us to do between brainstorming world-saving ideas. My DMs are always open if you want to bounce thoughts around!
We no longer have nearly as many human connections. Constant screen time, both as television and online entertainment (including social media), has eroded both our social and mental health. What if we started choosing a day a month en masse to turn off all screens. Even if we don't go out and do stuff, we might start reconnecting with our families, our friends, our hobbies, books, and improving our society. What if we started doing it once a week? I love how some conservatives started mocking liberals by telling them to "touch some grass." Maybe we all need to do it. All at the same time.
Yes! I think putting intention and ritual behind it is our best bet for making these screen-free moments actually happen. Block time off in your calendar, even if it's not what you'd typically consider an "appointment." A recurring event in your iCal, even better. Treat it with the same respect you'd give any other commitment.
And it's not just about "touching grass" (though I do love that). It can be picking up the phone and actually calling a random friend you haven't heard from in a while—yes, a phone call, not a text! I know we've gotten to the point where a phone call feels like it must be an emergency, but if you do it enough you'll get the hang of it again. Invite people over too. Hosting guests was already becoming a dying art before 2020, but COVID really delivered a knockout punch to casual gatherings.
When it's on the calendar, it's far more likely to actually happen. Maybe a hike will win out over TV time. A book can beat doomscrolling. Otherwise, the path of least resistance always wins.
Sadly only the ultra wealthy are the ones who don’t care about civic responsibility. This message needs to be pointed at them alone. The rest of America is already paying more than their fair share.
Um, Trump would call you dumb. All the men who voted for him would agree. He’d say he’s the smart one. They all use the code to their advantage. It’s called Tax Planning.
No doubt that he would! But it does put him in a rhetorical bind, don't you think? How can you say that DOGE has done their job trimming the fat, that the national deficit is too large, AND you don't want to pay your share of taxes? I'm not fantasizing about Trump realizing the error of his ways, I'm just saying there's an opening for people to make him and his pals look like freeloaders. I'm going to practice this on some Trumpy loved ones and report back on how it goes.
😂 Look - tell me something. Do Trumps fan boys and fan girls know that he pays little if any in taxes? Yes. Yes they do. This is NOT news. What we need is coming. Interest rates are rising. Unemployment should follow. Economic growth will begin to slow. And inflation will continue to tick up. This is called Stagflation - and it’s super super hard to fix. Why? You think you’re fixing one thing but it’s making another one worse. It’s the grand daddy of all Gordian Knots and it’s coming!
After and only after his voters feel real pain will they listen. As for now. It’s a cult. Logic and reason do not prevail. Neither to charts and graphs I’m afraid
I think you are hearing me say something that I am not saying. Nobody is under the impression that tax avoidance is news. The specific person I just reached out to was someone who voted for Bernie Sanders every chance he could get, and then voted for Trump in the last election. There are people who don’t fit in boxes and people can be reached, even if persuasion isn’t realistic. I understand it isn’t easy, nor will I make them feel regret, but there are more metrics for success than that. For instance, maybe he will stop posting about how excited he is about DOGE if he knows he will get receipts in the comments. Maybe these investigations will be the groundwork for a change of heart when that inevitable pain comes, with the knowledge that it was all preventable and intentional. Maybe it’s not about him at all, but the more moderate person who reads the exchange and hadn’t heard anything but propaganda until then. I am optimistic but also realistic.
I hear you. But why would they trust you? Or your data? Last time I checked facts have become disputable. That’s part of the problem. We are a democracy that is grossly misinformed and it’s getting worse not better. There’s nothing you can say or do no matter how pretty a package you think you’ve put it in that will make them suddenly believe you. They need to be primed with bad experiences like: i still can’t afford to by a house; I’ve lost my job; grocery prices are rising - you get the picture. They need to FEEL that they’ve been lied to before they’ll ever be swayed by you or anyone else from the Blue Team.
I hear you too. But that's the beauty of what I'm saying: I am not going to offer anyone any facts or evidence. I'm going to follow their beliefs. I'll ask them: "Have Musk and Trump done a good job of cutting the fat from the government budget? Great. That means now all of our taxes will be going to worthwhile things to fund right? Roads, bridges, military that kind of stuff? Fantastic. Now will you ask Trump and Musk to start paying their fair share of taxes, or do you want to pay their taxes for them?"
I would also encourage people to really understand that we have a lot of data now to show exactly what the rich and corporations do with the income they don’t pay in taxes. They use it to further enrich themselves. They continue to increase their wealth while wage growth for THE VAST MAJORITY of us remains unchanged. Our labor funds their increased wealth. It is high time for some class solidarity in this country. HIGH TIME. We need to understand that taxing the rich benefits 99% of us. We need to campaign finance reform. It. Is. Time.
Also I remember Jon Stewart discussing that when big companies like Walmart don’t pay a living wage the federal government then steps in to pay the difference via benefit programs while Walmart takes all the profits. We are subsidizing corporations. Is that accurate?
Yes! And then the government hires private companies to administer those social programs. So those private companies (and wealthy shareholders) get billions in government contracts and earn 20% profit margins on our tax dollars (all while doing a crappy job of actually serving the people). And the rich get richer and the rest of us stay stuck.
Sorry, I wasn’t super clear. Right now, the wealthy and corporations pay significant amounts of money not in taxes but in political donations. (It’s far cheaper and more lucrative for them to do this.) Then they get politicians to create laws (tax laws, minimum wage laws, industry regulations, etc.) that further enrich them and harm 99% of us. So things like the minimum wage stay stagnant (which impacts the pay of EVERYONE who works), while costs of everything from groceries to housing, etc. go up for the working class (to fuel profits of - you guessed it, the rich and corporations). So that feeling we all have that no matter how hard we try we can’t get ahead…it’s real, while those at the top get further and further ahead.
Oh, and I neglected to add “promote the privatization of public services” (like Medicare advantage, or the administration of welfare benefits) to the list of things the wealthy “buy” with their political donations. For more see this helpful explainer (language warning, but absolutely worth a watch if you want to understand) - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF0pXGbys_k/?igsh=MTM0d2t4N2h1ODczaw==
I think this is a bit of a stretch. Sure, there are big donors and lobbyists working for specific interests. Increasing taxes, especially corporate taxes, will not benefit workers. What degree of taxation would eliminate political influence?
I mean, you can ignore the data and just say it’s a stretch if you want. We do have data though to show how corporations use the tax cuts - and it’s not to benefit workers. I’ve shared multiple sources for this in other comments here today.
But to be crystal clear…I don’t think higher taxes will change political influence. That’s why I said “we need campaign finance reform” in my original comment. That is central issue and tax reform is a byproduct of that (not the other way around). When competition of ideas and accountability to the electorate (instead of the donors) happens, I also suspect that real data we have from decades of both higher and lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy will result in higher taxes for them. But I’m also willing to be wrong. I want REAL competition of ideas and problem solving in government and accountability to us - the people. That is not coming from higher taxes for anyone - it’s campaign finance reform.
I'm sorry, I don't think I was following your original point. Campaign finance reform, I agree with. I think you lost me when you said taxing the rich benefits the rest of us.
I’m glad we agree on campaign finance reform! Let’s work for that! And then we can see what the competition of ideas and accountability to us (instead of the donors) yields for tax reform. I promise to keep an open mind and really question my belief (and examine the data and proposed solutions) about why I think it’s good for all of us. But my larger point was that more money in their pockets currently means more access to cash to bend the system (and politicians) to their will. And that is hurting us. We the people are hurting. I hate that for us. And I want to work for more equality.
As a tax professional, working with mostly corporations, I know the IRS requires officers pay themselves a salary compensatory to what they would earn outside of their own business. These owners of multi corporations could be declaring they are just a figure head and not actively working for their companies. Closing this loophole would require billionaires to receive wages AND pay into Social Security!
That's interesting. Do you know how long that has been in effect? At Apple in the late 1990s, Steve Jobs famously took $1 as salary. It was widely reported. The company wasn't doing well those days, so he made it look like altruism. In reality, he was well compensated with stock options. I think the part where they make up for the salary in stock options was in the ProPublica piece in 2021 but maybe left out of The Preamble summary above.
When I was teaching, one of the first questions I would ask my students on the first day of Government class is, "What's the most patriotic thing a person can do?" Most students, without any hesitation would say something akin to military service, i.e. "join the Army", or even "die for your country." Honorable, and certainly patriotic acts. I would point out, however, that the vast majority of Americans will never put on a military uniform. "Can you think of something--other than military service?" Invariably, a student would reply, "Support the troops." "BAM!" I would exclaim, "And how do we support the troops?" That's when I'd get a room full of shrugs. "TAXES! Pay your taxes!"
The most patriotic thing that most of us will ever do--whether we have *served* or not, is to pay our damn taxes. And, 'billionaires' who literally shirk their responsibility to pay their fair share by utilizing loopholes are, in a word, unpatriotic. Keep in mind--just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it is right. Don't get me wrong. Tax loopholes are not necessarily bad. However, they are skewed to advantage the wrong demographic. I'm sorry, but Jeff Bezos should not be allowed to claim a deduction for dependents. Some might argue that to not allow him to would be 'punishing' him for being rich. I would argue that the tax code punishes the non-wealthy of our nation. And please don't get me started on the whole "job creator" thing...especially with the recent actions of Musk/Trump.
Thank you Sharon. I’m not very educated on tax laws but this article does make me question further why we are supporting tax cuts to the rich? I know not all that belong in the top tax bracket are billionaires but is there an answer to this that both republicans and democrats are agreeable to? I hear the argument of “they worked for it, they deserve it and why should they pay more taxes for being successful?” I get it but at the same time, I can’t help but feel the distance between the top 1% and middle class/low income class become wider by day and morally, I just can’t see that being right but then again I’m not in the top bracket.
"Trickle down economics" was claimed as the reason about 40 years ago. Don't tax the wealthy because they're the ones who create jobs. We have not seen any improvement, and in fact things have gotten worse, but it's still very much implanted in many people's brains.
As a tax professional, let’s look at the history of tax rates. Before the 1960s, the going rate on the Uber wealthy, such as a Rockefeller, was 90% on taxable income, with the highest topping 94%.
It’s only in recent history that we see this idea that taxing them less will mean more for the economy, better for America.
Thank you, this is so frustrating as public education teachers to see we are struggling month to month and the wealthy aren’t fairly contributing as well with their tax pay. Their companies also get so many government bail outs. Ugh. And yet we are cutting tons of government right now for more tax cuts for the wealthy
I have often wondered why we don't value profit sharing with employees in this country. Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish immigrant, and CEO of Chobani yogurt, gave all his employees shares of stock in 2016. I remember when I read this thinking what a great idea it was. Instead of all the money going to random people who bought stocks, some of the growth of the company goes to the people who actually make the yogurt. I know this isn't about taxes, but it addresses how the profits of many companies are concentrated at the top of the corporate ladder, and with investors.
The manufacturing company my husband works for used to do profit sharing. But then the company was bought by a big global corporation—the first thing to go (among many good things) was profit sharing.
Here's a loophole: you own a company; you then create a second company that pays for all of your "marketing" expenses - country club membership, dining out, travel, entertainment. You then have the first company pay the second company for "marketing". First company taxes is done by professional; 2nd company is done internally.
Or you own a couple of condos that your children live in; claim that they are empty and they're getting ready for rental; expense the renovations and then claim the kids are just overseeing things.
What I sincerely don't understand, is why people still trot out arguments in favor of trickle down economics?
In my understanding, when if we look at the 40ish year run of this dominant POV of taxation, it's resulted in an explosion of income inequality and wage stagnation. Large corporations mainly "reinvest" their gains into stock buybacks and absurd csuite compensation packages.
Can anyone point out evidence that trickle down economics "works" or beneficial for society writ large?
I would love if someone could also explain how a tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate job growth? Because from my experience, it doesn’t and often stagnates wages.
One way is that it can sometimes lead to wealthy creating businesses and job creation. The idea of - more money they have- the more will be invested back into the market.
Not only do we have the data, we literally have the world around us to observe. People are frequently working multiple jobs because the jobs created by the wealthy do not pay a living wage. We can pinpoint Reagan’s tax cuts to the moment wealth disparity began.
Oh, I don’t doubt jobs were created - I just don’t think they’re quality jobs. Massive companies like Amazon often pay less in wages or have unreasonable demands, meanwhile pushing out the natural job creation that occurs in a more robust entrepreneurial market that doesn’t have to compete with massive companies.
Also, as someone who works for a Warren Buffet company, he is absolutely not responsible for the “job creation” they are ascribing to him. Buffett buys companies that are already doing well and lets them cook with very little intervention. We give billionaires far more credit than they deserve (and I really like Buffett!)
That Forbes article is not at all about what they do with decreased taxes. Can we agree the that the question at hand is do they use tax cuts to create MORE (quality, to Ashley’s point) jobs? If so, we can look at the data from Trump’s first tax cuts (and many others). We can see that those did not result in jobs. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-failed-to-deliver-promised-benefits/
I wonder—if billionaires can create jobs if they have less taxes to pay, couldn’t ordinary Americans create jobs if they had similar tax breaks? Especially those that own small businesses.
I personally don't see how individual tax rates have any effect whatsoever on jobs. Corporate tax rates having an effect on jobs makes at least SOME sense and I think tax breaks for small businesses is a great way to boost growth for small employers. But I don't think small business corporate tax breaks should be equated to individual tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is one of the main reasons that I've moved further left in my thinking as I dug deeper into the "trickle down" theory, I found that the data doesn't hold up. It's a great theory if big corporations did the right thing, maybe it would work, but they mostly don't. They give bigger salaries (mostly stocks) to their executives, use profits for stock buybacks, etc. We have loads of data that show this now. What I'm also NOT saying is that no jobs are created, but we also have to look at jobs lost in these scenarios.
That’s pretty infuriating and I don’t know why anyone would want these UHNW individuals to get more tax cuts. They need to be taxed more and asap. I can’t imagine it would even affect them that much. The existence of billionaires hasn’t done much to help the average person. Job creation for positions that pay pennies in comparison is not a flex.
Could someone tell us more about capital gains taxes? We have very little in an investment account and feel like we got screwed at tax time (we've never taken any money from the account). Do those same type of taxes not apply to the 1% either? 🫠
You should talk to a tax/estate planning professional about investing in a different type of account. Capital gains aren't taxed as normal income, and the tax rate depends on whether they're short or long term gains. Rich people often have assets that enable them to use loopholes to not pay taxes on gains (e.g., by offsetting with "losses" - see the Bezos approach in the article). I'll see if I can find an article.
It helps them have more money they can use to further enrich themselves. It’s much cheaper for them to pay significant political donations to candidates who will do their bidding (for tax cuts and SO MUCH MORE) than to actually pay taxes.
Most don’t pay $0 taxes - many in the top brackets have to use different tax loops and strategies than the world’s richest. These tax cuts won’t do much for the Bezos’ and Musk’s of the world - it bolsters those making $400,000+.
I asked a question earlier about what defines 'wealthy' in regards to tax cuts and yours might be the answer I was looking for. The phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" is used to criticize policies that reduce tax rates for high earners - with Musk and Bezos often trotted out as examples. But there's a huge difference between households making $400,000 or more and ultra-wealthy billionaires like Cuban, Musk, Bezos et al. Feels misleading, if these tax cuts don't seem to impact the billionaires. (I'm not saying you personally are doing this)
People making $400,000+ are wealthy. Obviously what $400K can buy depends on the area - I acknowledge $400k in SF/NY are not as wealthy as $400k in a rural area. Still, the people benefitting from these tax cuts are considered very wealthy by our country’s standards where the average household income is only $80k.
Ok. And I completely acknowledge that Sharon's article today was specifically about billionaires - not about people making $400,000+. Personally, I think the focus should be on billionaires and corporations, where the real wealth concentration lies, rather than treating individuals and families making $400K+ as though they’re in the same category.
I partially agree with you. I definitely don't think we need to villainize those making $400k-$10 million+. And I don't think it's the intention of anyone here (or any Democrats or liberals) of villainizing this subset of people. I agree with you that there's a massive difference between billionaires and millionaires. Still, not taxing millionaires is what leads to billionaires, and I'm not willing to let millionaires off the hook for raking in tax cuts while the rest of the country does the hard labor and gets paid pennies in comparison. Especially when it's many of the hundred-millionaires who are pouring money into politics to sway politicians in their favor.
Fascinating timing on this article, Sharon. Now that we have the "world's smartest billionaire" slashing government spending "with a chainsaw," it's the perfect moment to reconsider our strange admiration for billionaire tax avoidance. After all, if the government is now slimmed down to just the programs and infrastructure that keeps our country functioning, there couldn’t possibly be a charitable organization more worthy of their donations — but unlike a charity, paying their taxes is now, according to their own logic, more like paying a bill of what they actually owe. Right?
For too long, we've celebrated these tax schemes as brilliant financial wizardry instead of calling them what they are - civic freeloading. Every dollar these billionaires don't pay is either coming directly from our wallets or being added to the national debt they pretend to care about. If there's truly no more government waste to cut, what excuse do they have left?
The most absurd part is how many of these same individuals brand themselves as generous philanthropists while giving away pennies compared to what they hoard. They control foundations that distribute tiny fractions of their wealth while their fortunes continue to balloon through the very tax avoidance schemes you've described.
Maybe it's time we changed how we talk about this. What if we started publicly shaming billionaires who use these tactics rather than admiring their "savvy"? What if financial media stopped reporting on "tax efficiency" as a positive and started reporting on "civic contribution" instead? What if we celebrated the wealthy who willingly pay their fair share and created social consequences for those who don't?
We have more power than we think. Public pressure has changed corporate behavior on environmental and social issues - why not taxation? Perhaps the most effective bill we can send billionaires is a social one.
Imagine a website called "SendEmTheBill.com" or something (help me with some ideas please) that tracks these ultra-wealthy individuals in a simple grid: their current net worth, what they actually paid in taxes, what they would have paid if taxed at the same rate as someone earning $100,000, and the difference between the two. Finally, a "Send Them The Bill" button that publicly challenges them to contribute this difference to pay down our national debt or fund critical public services. Those who refuse get prominently labeled as "Tax Dodgers" or "Civic Thieves" on the site's leaderboard. Or how about we revive that “Welfare Queen” slur and put it to actual good use? Social media campaigns could amplify these labels until they become part of these billionaires' public identities. Nothing motivates the image-conscious wealthy quite like public accountability. Hit em where it hurts: their legacy.
Love your ideas! Especially this: "What if financial media stopped reporting on "tax efficiency" as a positive and started reporting on "civic contribution" instead?" I have long wondered why we do not take more pride in paying taxes, since taxes are what pay for so many of the things we rely on in our daily lives. I definitely think it is time to change the way we talk about this.
Reminds me of a quote I read somewhere along the line that "real patriots pay taxes" and I think about that a lot. Sometimes I wish that, on Election Day, we could actually vote for different categories on where we wish we could send our tax money. Then the politicians wouldn't have to assume what our priorities are, because they'd have that data...and it would probably increase voter turnout too!
Need a t-shirt that says "Real Patriots Pay Taxes"
Allison and Natalie, thank you so much! I loved reading these comments.
I'm with you, Allison - it's bizarre how we've turned tax participation into something shameful rather than a point of civic pride. What if we flipped the script and celebrated those who contribute their share to keep our schools, roads, parks, and safety nets functioning? How would those celebrations look? People love having their names on plaques, right? How about this tribute: "This fountain is to honor Jeff Bezos, who radically decided to pay the same portion of his wealth in taxes that the average school teacher does." Maybe add some flattering statues, if they really knock it out of the park by contributing extra? More parks and more art? Sign me up.
Natalie, your ballot idea is brilliant. Even if it were just advisory rather than binding, imagine the power of having concrete data on citizen priorities. Politicians would have nowhere to hide when they ignored clear public consensus on spending priorities.
This is the kind of thinking I live for - finding seemingly intractable problems and refusing to accept defeat before we even try. Instead of throwing up our hands, we can propose bold, creative solutions that might actually move the needle.
Small ideas plus action often accomplish more than perfect solutions that never happen. Keep them coming!
Natalie I have had this same idea for years! I have always thought we should be able to "say" or direct exactly where our tax dollars go. For example we should have categories to choose from and depending on what is important to you, you get to choose where your tax dollars go instead of politicians choosing for us. Education, defense, environment, etc. Our priorities would be very clear and they wouldn't have a choice but to spend on the programs that receive the most money.
Yessss!! Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
Timothy, I genuinely enjoy reading your comments here. You have such a thoughtful, expansive way of looking at things and imagining greater possibilities. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your voice and POV, it's so refreshing.
You're right that we're long overdue for a reframe. To me, SO SO many of our issues deeply stem from a narrative that to me, reads as "Individualism Over Everything." And I get how that happened, in all the ways we've been fragmented from each other.
But I'm wondering what might it look like if we shifted that? I'm curious how we could recreate/foster a collective sense of shared civic responsibility. It's reminding me of the current discourse on the "lack of community" so many of us feel, and I wonder how that's all connected. Hmmmmm -- I'm going to marinate on that today.
(Also, I'm going to start using "civic freeloading" -- what a great turn of phrase!)
Alix, you just made my day with those kind words - thank you!
Your "Individualism Over Everything" observation really hits home. I was talking with someone on Zoom yesterday (a Preamble connection!) who's struggled with this exact issue - in her current neighborhood, people have been next-door neighbors for 25+ years without knowing each other's names. While individualism is part of our national identity, it's reached absurd levels... 10-foot tall fences, garage-to-house transitions designed to avoid human contact. It's unhealthy and inevitably bleeds into our politics. It's much easier to demonize institutions if your only connections share a roof and don't directly benefit from them.
Let's both marinate on this while we trudge through whatever our lives force us to do between brainstorming world-saving ideas. My DMs are always open if you want to bounce thoughts around!
We no longer have nearly as many human connections. Constant screen time, both as television and online entertainment (including social media), has eroded both our social and mental health. What if we started choosing a day a month en masse to turn off all screens. Even if we don't go out and do stuff, we might start reconnecting with our families, our friends, our hobbies, books, and improving our society. What if we started doing it once a week? I love how some conservatives started mocking liberals by telling them to "touch some grass." Maybe we all need to do it. All at the same time.
Yes! I think putting intention and ritual behind it is our best bet for making these screen-free moments actually happen. Block time off in your calendar, even if it's not what you'd typically consider an "appointment." A recurring event in your iCal, even better. Treat it with the same respect you'd give any other commitment.
And it's not just about "touching grass" (though I do love that). It can be picking up the phone and actually calling a random friend you haven't heard from in a while—yes, a phone call, not a text! I know we've gotten to the point where a phone call feels like it must be an emergency, but if you do it enough you'll get the hang of it again. Invite people over too. Hosting guests was already becoming a dying art before 2020, but COVID really delivered a knockout punch to casual gatherings.
When it's on the calendar, it's far more likely to actually happen. Maybe a hike will win out over TV time. A book can beat doomscrolling. Otherwise, the path of least resistance always wins.
Sadly only the ultra wealthy are the ones who don’t care about civic responsibility. This message needs to be pointed at them alone. The rest of America is already paying more than their fair share.
Brilliant. I support this 100%.
Um, Trump would call you dumb. All the men who voted for him would agree. He’d say he’s the smart one. They all use the code to their advantage. It’s called Tax Planning.
No doubt that he would! But it does put him in a rhetorical bind, don't you think? How can you say that DOGE has done their job trimming the fat, that the national deficit is too large, AND you don't want to pay your share of taxes? I'm not fantasizing about Trump realizing the error of his ways, I'm just saying there's an opening for people to make him and his pals look like freeloaders. I'm going to practice this on some Trumpy loved ones and report back on how it goes.
😂 Look - tell me something. Do Trumps fan boys and fan girls know that he pays little if any in taxes? Yes. Yes they do. This is NOT news. What we need is coming. Interest rates are rising. Unemployment should follow. Economic growth will begin to slow. And inflation will continue to tick up. This is called Stagflation - and it’s super super hard to fix. Why? You think you’re fixing one thing but it’s making another one worse. It’s the grand daddy of all Gordian Knots and it’s coming!
After and only after his voters feel real pain will they listen. As for now. It’s a cult. Logic and reason do not prevail. Neither to charts and graphs I’m afraid
I think you are hearing me say something that I am not saying. Nobody is under the impression that tax avoidance is news. The specific person I just reached out to was someone who voted for Bernie Sanders every chance he could get, and then voted for Trump in the last election. There are people who don’t fit in boxes and people can be reached, even if persuasion isn’t realistic. I understand it isn’t easy, nor will I make them feel regret, but there are more metrics for success than that. For instance, maybe he will stop posting about how excited he is about DOGE if he knows he will get receipts in the comments. Maybe these investigations will be the groundwork for a change of heart when that inevitable pain comes, with the knowledge that it was all preventable and intentional. Maybe it’s not about him at all, but the more moderate person who reads the exchange and hadn’t heard anything but propaganda until then. I am optimistic but also realistic.
I hear you. But why would they trust you? Or your data? Last time I checked facts have become disputable. That’s part of the problem. We are a democracy that is grossly misinformed and it’s getting worse not better. There’s nothing you can say or do no matter how pretty a package you think you’ve put it in that will make them suddenly believe you. They need to be primed with bad experiences like: i still can’t afford to by a house; I’ve lost my job; grocery prices are rising - you get the picture. They need to FEEL that they’ve been lied to before they’ll ever be swayed by you or anyone else from the Blue Team.
I hear you too. But that's the beauty of what I'm saying: I am not going to offer anyone any facts or evidence. I'm going to follow their beliefs. I'll ask them: "Have Musk and Trump done a good job of cutting the fat from the government budget? Great. That means now all of our taxes will be going to worthwhile things to fund right? Roads, bridges, military that kind of stuff? Fantastic. Now will you ask Trump and Musk to start paying their fair share of taxes, or do you want to pay their taxes for them?"
I would also encourage people to really understand that we have a lot of data now to show exactly what the rich and corporations do with the income they don’t pay in taxes. They use it to further enrich themselves. They continue to increase their wealth while wage growth for THE VAST MAJORITY of us remains unchanged. Our labor funds their increased wealth. It is high time for some class solidarity in this country. HIGH TIME. We need to understand that taxing the rich benefits 99% of us. We need to campaign finance reform. It. Is. Time.
Also I remember Jon Stewart discussing that when big companies like Walmart don’t pay a living wage the federal government then steps in to pay the difference via benefit programs while Walmart takes all the profits. We are subsidizing corporations. Is that accurate?
Yes! And then the government hires private companies to administer those social programs. So those private companies (and wealthy shareholders) get billions in government contracts and earn 20% profit margins on our tax dollars (all while doing a crappy job of actually serving the people). And the rich get richer and the rest of us stay stuck.
How would this affect wage growth? I'm failing to see a connection between Warren Buffet paying more in taxes and my personal salary.
Sorry, I wasn’t super clear. Right now, the wealthy and corporations pay significant amounts of money not in taxes but in political donations. (It’s far cheaper and more lucrative for them to do this.) Then they get politicians to create laws (tax laws, minimum wage laws, industry regulations, etc.) that further enrich them and harm 99% of us. So things like the minimum wage stay stagnant (which impacts the pay of EVERYONE who works), while costs of everything from groceries to housing, etc. go up for the working class (to fuel profits of - you guessed it, the rich and corporations). So that feeling we all have that no matter how hard we try we can’t get ahead…it’s real, while those at the top get further and further ahead.
Oh, and I neglected to add “promote the privatization of public services” (like Medicare advantage, or the administration of welfare benefits) to the list of things the wealthy “buy” with their political donations. For more see this helpful explainer (language warning, but absolutely worth a watch if you want to understand) - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF0pXGbys_k/?igsh=MTM0d2t4N2h1ODczaw==
Yes! Love Katie. She has a whole podcast episode on Money with Katie about government waste and privatization.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. Sure, there are big donors and lobbyists working for specific interests. Increasing taxes, especially corporate taxes, will not benefit workers. What degree of taxation would eliminate political influence?
I mean, you can ignore the data and just say it’s a stretch if you want. We do have data though to show how corporations use the tax cuts - and it’s not to benefit workers. I’ve shared multiple sources for this in other comments here today.
But to be crystal clear…I don’t think higher taxes will change political influence. That’s why I said “we need campaign finance reform” in my original comment. That is central issue and tax reform is a byproduct of that (not the other way around). When competition of ideas and accountability to the electorate (instead of the donors) happens, I also suspect that real data we have from decades of both higher and lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy will result in higher taxes for them. But I’m also willing to be wrong. I want REAL competition of ideas and problem solving in government and accountability to us - the people. That is not coming from higher taxes for anyone - it’s campaign finance reform.
I'm sorry, I don't think I was following your original point. Campaign finance reform, I agree with. I think you lost me when you said taxing the rich benefits the rest of us.
I’m glad we agree on campaign finance reform! Let’s work for that! And then we can see what the competition of ideas and accountability to us (instead of the donors) yields for tax reform. I promise to keep an open mind and really question my belief (and examine the data and proposed solutions) about why I think it’s good for all of us. But my larger point was that more money in their pockets currently means more access to cash to bend the system (and politicians) to their will. And that is hurting us. We the people are hurting. I hate that for us. And I want to work for more equality.
As a tax professional, working with mostly corporations, I know the IRS requires officers pay themselves a salary compensatory to what they would earn outside of their own business. These owners of multi corporations could be declaring they are just a figure head and not actively working for their companies. Closing this loophole would require billionaires to receive wages AND pay into Social Security!
That's interesting. Do you know how long that has been in effect? At Apple in the late 1990s, Steve Jobs famously took $1 as salary. It was widely reported. The company wasn't doing well those days, so he made it look like altruism. In reality, he was well compensated with stock options. I think the part where they make up for the salary in stock options was in the ProPublica piece in 2021 but maybe left out of The Preamble summary above.
When I was teaching, one of the first questions I would ask my students on the first day of Government class is, "What's the most patriotic thing a person can do?" Most students, without any hesitation would say something akin to military service, i.e. "join the Army", or even "die for your country." Honorable, and certainly patriotic acts. I would point out, however, that the vast majority of Americans will never put on a military uniform. "Can you think of something--other than military service?" Invariably, a student would reply, "Support the troops." "BAM!" I would exclaim, "And how do we support the troops?" That's when I'd get a room full of shrugs. "TAXES! Pay your taxes!"
The most patriotic thing that most of us will ever do--whether we have *served* or not, is to pay our damn taxes. And, 'billionaires' who literally shirk their responsibility to pay their fair share by utilizing loopholes are, in a word, unpatriotic. Keep in mind--just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it is right. Don't get me wrong. Tax loopholes are not necessarily bad. However, they are skewed to advantage the wrong demographic. I'm sorry, but Jeff Bezos should not be allowed to claim a deduction for dependents. Some might argue that to not allow him to would be 'punishing' him for being rich. I would argue that the tax code punishes the non-wealthy of our nation. And please don't get me started on the whole "job creator" thing...especially with the recent actions of Musk/Trump.
I don't have anything intelligent to say here. Let's just eat the rich.
I have a friend who jokes, "I bet if we just eat one, the rest fall in line!" 🤣🤣
Now that's funny
Thank you Sharon. I’m not very educated on tax laws but this article does make me question further why we are supporting tax cuts to the rich? I know not all that belong in the top tax bracket are billionaires but is there an answer to this that both republicans and democrats are agreeable to? I hear the argument of “they worked for it, they deserve it and why should they pay more taxes for being successful?” I get it but at the same time, I can’t help but feel the distance between the top 1% and middle class/low income class become wider by day and morally, I just can’t see that being right but then again I’m not in the top bracket.
"Trickle down economics" was claimed as the reason about 40 years ago. Don't tax the wealthy because they're the ones who create jobs. We have not seen any improvement, and in fact things have gotten worse, but it's still very much implanted in many people's brains.
Yes, I think we are stuck in this trickle down mindset. But wealth inequality has only gotten worse.
I agree Jaclyn. I don’t claim to be an expert but this was my thought as well
As a tax professional, let’s look at the history of tax rates. Before the 1960s, the going rate on the Uber wealthy, such as a Rockefeller, was 90% on taxable income, with the highest topping 94%.
It’s only in recent history that we see this idea that taxing them less will mean more for the economy, better for America.
Thank you, I was asking about this in a separate comment.
Thank you, this is so frustrating as public education teachers to see we are struggling month to month and the wealthy aren’t fairly contributing as well with their tax pay. Their companies also get so many government bail outs. Ugh. And yet we are cutting tons of government right now for more tax cuts for the wealthy
I have often wondered why we don't value profit sharing with employees in this country. Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish immigrant, and CEO of Chobani yogurt, gave all his employees shares of stock in 2016. I remember when I read this thinking what a great idea it was. Instead of all the money going to random people who bought stocks, some of the growth of the company goes to the people who actually make the yogurt. I know this isn't about taxes, but it addresses how the profits of many companies are concentrated at the top of the corporate ladder, and with investors.
I work in tech. Most jobs I've held since 2007 have done some form of profit sharing and/or employee stock purchase plans.
Yep equity can be a substantial portion of your compensation in tech, I didn't realize this was different outside this industry. Is it?
I'm not positive but I do think it's much more common in tech than in other industries.
The company I'm working for went private and took away profit sharing and bonuses in 2023 though.
The manufacturing company my husband works for used to do profit sharing. But then the company was bought by a big global corporation—the first thing to go (among many good things) was profit sharing.
Yeah I think it just used to be more common than it is now. Look for terms like "employee owned".
Here's a loophole: you own a company; you then create a second company that pays for all of your "marketing" expenses - country club membership, dining out, travel, entertainment. You then have the first company pay the second company for "marketing". First company taxes is done by professional; 2nd company is done internally.
Or you own a couple of condos that your children live in; claim that they are empty and they're getting ready for rental; expense the renovations and then claim the kids are just overseeing things.
What I sincerely don't understand, is why people still trot out arguments in favor of trickle down economics?
In my understanding, when if we look at the 40ish year run of this dominant POV of taxation, it's resulted in an explosion of income inequality and wage stagnation. Large corporations mainly "reinvest" their gains into stock buybacks and absurd csuite compensation packages.
Can anyone point out evidence that trickle down economics "works" or beneficial for society writ large?
They also use Roth IRAs to make investments and the profits go right back into the Roth. Zero taxes as long as they don’t withdraw the money until age 59 1/2. https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank
I would love if someone could also explain how a tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate job growth? Because from my experience, it doesn’t and often stagnates wages.
One way is that it can sometimes lead to wealthy creating businesses and job creation. The idea of - more money they have- the more will be invested back into the market.
We actually have a lot of data that show they do NOT result in job creation. Check out https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf, for example.
Not only do we have the data, we literally have the world around us to observe. People are frequently working multiple jobs because the jobs created by the wealthy do not pay a living wage. We can pinpoint Reagan’s tax cuts to the moment wealth disparity began.
There are definitely different schools of thought on it.
Here is an older article about the jobs created.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerenblankfeld/2016/10/18/american-billionaires-behind-the-most-jobs/
Oh, I don’t doubt jobs were created - I just don’t think they’re quality jobs. Massive companies like Amazon often pay less in wages or have unreasonable demands, meanwhile pushing out the natural job creation that occurs in a more robust entrepreneurial market that doesn’t have to compete with massive companies.
Also, as someone who works for a Warren Buffet company, he is absolutely not responsible for the “job creation” they are ascribing to him. Buffett buys companies that are already doing well and lets them cook with very little intervention. We give billionaires far more credit than they deserve (and I really like Buffett!)
That Forbes article is not at all about what they do with decreased taxes. Can we agree the that the question at hand is do they use tax cuts to create MORE (quality, to Ashley’s point) jobs? If so, we can look at the data from Trump’s first tax cuts (and many others). We can see that those did not result in jobs. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-failed-to-deliver-promised-benefits/
I wonder—if billionaires can create jobs if they have less taxes to pay, couldn’t ordinary Americans create jobs if they had similar tax breaks? Especially those that own small businesses.
I personally don't see how individual tax rates have any effect whatsoever on jobs. Corporate tax rates having an effect on jobs makes at least SOME sense and I think tax breaks for small businesses is a great way to boost growth for small employers. But I don't think small business corporate tax breaks should be equated to individual tax breaks for the wealthy.
Good point.
This is one of the main reasons that I've moved further left in my thinking as I dug deeper into the "trickle down" theory, I found that the data doesn't hold up. It's a great theory if big corporations did the right thing, maybe it would work, but they mostly don't. They give bigger salaries (mostly stocks) to their executives, use profits for stock buybacks, etc. We have loads of data that show this now. What I'm also NOT saying is that no jobs are created, but we also have to look at jobs lost in these scenarios.
That’s pretty infuriating and I don’t know why anyone would want these UHNW individuals to get more tax cuts. They need to be taxed more and asap. I can’t imagine it would even affect them that much. The existence of billionaires hasn’t done much to help the average person. Job creation for positions that pay pennies in comparison is not a flex.
Could someone tell us more about capital gains taxes? We have very little in an investment account and feel like we got screwed at tax time (we've never taken any money from the account). Do those same type of taxes not apply to the 1% either? 🫠
You should talk to a tax/estate planning professional about investing in a different type of account. Capital gains aren't taxed as normal income, and the tax rate depends on whether they're short or long term gains. Rich people often have assets that enable them to use loopholes to not pay taxes on gains (e.g., by offsetting with "losses" - see the Bezos approach in the article). I'll see if I can find an article.
Here's an article on why you ended up getting an unexpected tax bill and what you can do to try to avoid it in the future: https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/capital-gains-taxes-how-to-avoid-mutual-fund-tax-bombs
If the rich pay no taxes, how does a tax cut for the rich help them?
It helps them have more money they can use to further enrich themselves. It’s much cheaper for them to pay significant political donations to candidates who will do their bidding (for tax cuts and SO MUCH MORE) than to actually pay taxes.
Most don’t pay $0 taxes - many in the top brackets have to use different tax loops and strategies than the world’s richest. These tax cuts won’t do much for the Bezos’ and Musk’s of the world - it bolsters those making $400,000+.
I asked a question earlier about what defines 'wealthy' in regards to tax cuts and yours might be the answer I was looking for. The phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" is used to criticize policies that reduce tax rates for high earners - with Musk and Bezos often trotted out as examples. But there's a huge difference between households making $400,000 or more and ultra-wealthy billionaires like Cuban, Musk, Bezos et al. Feels misleading, if these tax cuts don't seem to impact the billionaires. (I'm not saying you personally are doing this)
People making $400,000+ are wealthy. Obviously what $400K can buy depends on the area - I acknowledge $400k in SF/NY are not as wealthy as $400k in a rural area. Still, the people benefitting from these tax cuts are considered very wealthy by our country’s standards where the average household income is only $80k.
Ok. And I completely acknowledge that Sharon's article today was specifically about billionaires - not about people making $400,000+. Personally, I think the focus should be on billionaires and corporations, where the real wealth concentration lies, rather than treating individuals and families making $400K+ as though they’re in the same category.
I partially agree with you. I definitely don't think we need to villainize those making $400k-$10 million+. And I don't think it's the intention of anyone here (or any Democrats or liberals) of villainizing this subset of people. I agree with you that there's a massive difference between billionaires and millionaires. Still, not taxing millionaires is what leads to billionaires, and I'm not willing to let millionaires off the hook for raking in tax cuts while the rest of the country does the hard labor and gets paid pennies in comparison. Especially when it's many of the hundred-millionaires who are pouring money into politics to sway politicians in their favor.