#Billionaires Income Tax Act

[ivygorgon]

No free rides for old money! - Pass The Billionaires Income Tax Act! (S. 3367)

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed S. 3367 bill, which aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This legislation represents a crucial step towards achieving economic justice by seeking to eliminate tax loopholes that have allowed billionaires to defer taxes indefinitely. By doing so, we would be ensuring a fairer distribution of wealth and rectifying a system that has long favored the ultra-wealthy. Additionally, the bill modifies over 30 tax provisions, requiring billionaires to contribute annually. It's time to ensure that those with the most significant influence and wealth contribute proportionately to our society's well-being. Therefore, I urge you to support and pass the Billionaires Income Tax Act.

Billionaires have amassed vast wealth, often at the expense of their employees who struggle to make ends meet on minimum wages. It is only just and equitable that they pay their employees a living wage AND contribute proportionally to the betterment of our society.

Furthermore, if billionaires wield significant influence over our government and policy-making, they should demonstrate their commitment by financially supporting the very system that has allowed them to prosper. No longer should they enjoy free rides on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. It is past time to ensure that billionaires are contributing their fair share to the well-being of our country.

Passing the Billionaires Income Tax Act is not only a matter of fiscal responsibility but also a moral imperative. It is time to ensure that our tax system is fair and equitable for all, not just the wealthy few.

Thank you for considering my views on this important issue. I urge you to stand on the side of fairness and justice by supporting S.3367.

No free rides for old money!

📱 Text SIGN POZZVN to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

[sunshinestate323]

Who'd'a thunk people don't like being knocked down and robbed by the gluttonous traitorous psychos at the top of the corporate and industrial food chain...

CNBC is burying the lede in this headline though: McDonalds isn't raising the red flag for the long-term health and sustainability of humanity but for the short-term impact said looming crisis could have on their short-term profits, ergo their share price on Wall St. (and thence vis a vis their respective executive compensation packages).... picture scavengers strategizing how to hoard the biggest chunk of a rapidly diminishing pool of carrion and that's basically what this is about.

[robertreich]

Trump’s Tax Scam: Why Nothing Trickled Down 

The Trump tax cuts were a YUGE scam.

But this November we have a chance to end this trickle-down hoax once and for all.

Donald Trump’s biggest legislative achievement (if you want to even call it that) was the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The law permanently slashed corporate taxes and temporarily cut income tax rates mostly for rich individuals through the year 2025. The results were worse than I could have imagined.

Trump and his officials claimed the tax cuts would lead to corporations hiring more workers and would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household incomes.

What actually happened in the years since?

In AT&T’s case, the company saw its overall federal tax bill drop by 81%. It spent 31 times more on dividends and stock buybacks to enrich wealthy shareholders than it paid it in taxes. Meanwhile, it slashed over 40,000 jobs.

That was par for the course with Trump’s tax cuts.

Like AT&T, America’s biggest corporations didn��t use their tax savings to increase productivity or reward workers. Instead, they increased their stock buybacks and dividends.

Many of them, including AT&T, even ended up paying their executives more in some years than what they paid Uncle Sam.    

Those executives (along with other high earners) then got to keep more of their earnings because Trump’s tax cuts for individuals were heavily skewed toward the rich. The lowest earners? They got squat.

And many middle-income families saw their taxes go up.

And those supposed $4,000 raises, did you get one?

The bottom line is that Trump’s tax law fueled a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. U.S. billionaire wealth has more than DOUBLED since 2018.

The tax cuts have also added $2 trillion to the national debt so far, but that hasn’t stopped Trump and the so-called “party of fiscal responsibility” from doubling down on renewing them.

If Trump is reelected and Republicans take control of Congress, they’re planning to renew the expiring tax cuts for individuals that primarily benefited the rich. This would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade, more than double the cost of the original tax cuts.

Trump has also threatened to lower the corporate tax rate even further from 21% to 15% — which would cost another $1 trillion.

It’s trickle-down economics on steroids.

All of this would cause the federal deficit and debt to soar — which Republicans will then use as an excuse to cut spending on government programs the rest of us rely on.

But the Democrats have their own tax plan. We can make it a reality this November. What would it do? Just the opposite of Trump’s tax plan.

ONE: It would increase taxes on wealthy individuals with incomes in excess of $400,000 a year, while cutting taxes for lower-income Americans.

TWO: It would make billionaires pay at least 25 percent of their incomes in taxes, still leaving them with plenty left over.

THREE: It would raise the corporate income tax to 28 percent, which is about what it was in 1990.

LASTLY, it would quadruple the tax on stock buybacks to get corporations to invest more of their earnings in workers’ wages and productivity instead of windfalls for investors.

So the real choice is between the Republicans’ plan to make the rich much richer, and the Democrats’ plan to make the rich pay their fair share and provide what Americans need.

Which do you want?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Corporate Bullshit

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Corporate Bullshit: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America is Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's 2023 book on the history of corporate apologetics; it's great:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

I found out about this book last fall when David Dayen reviewed it for the The American Prospect; Dayen did a great job of breaking down its thesis, and I picked it up for my newsletter, which prompted Hanauer to send me a copy, which I finally got around to reading yesterday (I have gigantic backlog of reading):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

The authors' thesis is that the business world has a well-worn playbook that they roll out whenever anything that might cause industry to behave even slightly less destructively is proposed. What's more, we keep falling for it. Every time we try to have nice things, our bosses – and their well-paid Renfields – dust off their talking points from the last go-round, do a little madlibs-style search and replace, and bust it out again.

It's a four-stage plan:

I. First, insist that there is no problem.

Enslaved people are actually happy. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Higher CO2 levels are imaginary and they're caused by sunspots and they're good for crop yields. The hole in the ozone layer is only a problem if you foolishly decide to hang around outside (this is real!).

II. OK, there's a problem, but it's your fault.

An epidemic of on-the-job maimings is actually an epidemic of sloppy workers. A gigantic housing crash is really a gigantic cohort of greedy, feckless borrowers. Rampant price gouging is actually a problem of too much "spending power" (that is, "money") in the hands of working people.

III. Any attempt to fix this will make it worse.

Equal wages for equal work will cause bosses to fire women and people of color. Protecting people with disabilities will cause bosses to fire disable people. Minimum wages will cause bosses to buy machines and fire "unskilled" workers. Gun control will only increase underground gun sales. Banning carcinogenic pesticides will end agriculture as we know and we'll all starve to death.

IV. This is socialism.

Income tax is socialism. Estate tax is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid are socialism. Food stamps are socialism. Child labor laws are socialism. Public education is socialism. The National Labor Relations Act is socialism. Unions are socialism. Social security is socialism. The Fair Labor Standards Act is socialism. Obamacare is socialism. The Civil Rights Act is socialism. The Occupational Health and Safety Act is socialism. The Family Medical Leave Act is socialism. FDR is a socialist. JFK is a socialist. Lyndon Johnson is a socialist. Carter is a socialist. Clinton is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. Biden is a socialist (Biden: "I beat the socialist. That's how I got the nomination").

Though this playbook has been in existence since the nation's founding, the authors point out that from the New Deal until the Reagan era, it didn't get much traction. But starting in the Reagan years, the well-funded network of billionaire-backed think-tanks, endowed economics chairs, and latter-day propaganda vehicles like Prageru breathed new life into these tactics.

We can see this playing out right now as the corporate world scrambles for a response to the Harris campaign's proposal to address price-gouging. Reading Matt Stoller's dissection of this response, we can see the whole playbook on display:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-price-gouging-vs

First, corporate apologists insisted that greedflation didn't exist, despite the fact that CEOs kept getting on earnings calls and boasting to their investors about how they were using the excuse of inflation to jack up prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

Or the oil CEOs who boasted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave them cover to just screw us at the pump:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#soak-the-rich

There are all these out-in-the-open commercial entities whose sole purpose is to "advise" large corporations about their prices, which is just a barely disguised euphemism for price-fixing, from meat-packing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

To rents:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

That's stage one: "there's no problem." Stage two is "it's your fault." That's Larry Summers and co insisting that a couple of stimulus checks a couple years ago are responsible for inflation, because it gave you too much "buying power," and so the only possible fix is to jack up interest rates and trigger mass layoffs and sharp wage decreases across the economy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/14/medieval-bloodletters/#its-the-stupid-economy

Stage three is "any attempt to fix this will make it worse." When Isabella Weber pointed out that there was a long history of price-controls being used to fight price-gouging, corporate apologists lost their minds and brigaded her, calling her all kinds of nasty names and insisting that her prescription didn't even warrant serious discussion, because any attempt to control prices would destroy the economy:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/lately/article-the-millennial-economist-who-took-on-the-world/

You may recognize this as cousin to the response to rent control proposals, which inevitably trigger a barrage of economists screaming that this will not work and will actually reduce the housing supply and drive up prices, which is true, provided that you ignore all evidence and history:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

And stage four is "this is socialism." Look, I am a literal card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America and I can assure you, Kamala Harris is not a socialist (and more's the pity). But that didn't stop the most eminently guillotineable members of the investor class from hair-on-fire, ALL-CAPS denunciations of the Harris proposal as SOCIALISM and Harris herself as a COMMUNIST:

https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1824580470052725055

The author's thesis is that by naming the playbook and giving examples of it – for example, showing how the "proof" that minimum wage increases will destroy jobs was also offered as "proof" not to abolish slavery, ban child labor, add fireproofing to textile factories, and pay women and Black people the same as white guys – we can vaccinate ourselves against it.

Certainly, we've reached a moment where the public is increasingly skeptical of claims that we can't fix anything because the economists say that this is the best of all possible worlds, and if that means that we're all going to boil to death in our own skin, so be it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

In other words, after 40 years of subordinating politics to economics, there's a resurgence of belief in politics – that is, doing stuff – rather than hunkering down and waiting for the technocrats to fix everything:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/seeing-like-a-matt

Corporate Bullshit is a brisk and bracing read – I got through it in about an hour in my hammock yesterday – and, in laying out the bullshit playbook's long history of nonsensical predictions and pronouncements, it does make a very good case that we should stop listening to people who quote from it.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/#narratives

[15-lizards]

ASOIAF modern AU class/wealth distinctions bc in the wise words of Mod Sam from the Inn at The Crossroads Discord: “i love modern aus where theyre like oh yeah the lannisters are filthy rich and here's the starks, piling into a minivan to go to public school. they would not fucking do that”

Lannisters: Private jets and COO/CEO/CFO positions at the family company and plain white tshirts that cost $5000. 1% of the 1%. They’re the Roys we already know this no need to elaborate.

Starks: they’re a rugged type of Minnesota/North Dakota/Wyoming wealth. Land rich. Own ranches and mining operations and oil drilling companies. Ppl think they’re normal bc they look like average farmers until they get a tour of their 300,000 acres and private mountain. Seem down to earth but grew up breeding ranch horses, don’t really understand what a car note is, and Nedcat paid for all the starklings college apartments. Also wear normal looking vests and ranching jeans and boots that cost absurd amounts

Tyrells: masters at the “quiet wealth” bullshit. Wayyyy older money compared to the Lannisters, and aren’t aggressive/scrappy like them bc of it. Literal aristocracy like lords or barons or some shit. Multiple residences, family tradition of politics, and loads of passive income. Maybe run a newspaper or two and own some global shipping companies bc of their merchant roots or whatever. Margaery was at one of those international debutante balls for the ubër-wealthy.

Tullys: Not as rich as the Tyrells or Lannisters but still nothing to scoff at. Not upper middle class but more like lower rungs of the upper class. Family tradition of sending all the kids to boarding school (that’s where Lysa got pregnant 🙂‍↕️) and they have some nice yachts and the like. Have one really nice permanent house on the river, a summer house upstate, and an apartment in the city. Normal enough to blend in with most people at their school. Also made their money thru shipping lanes.

Martells: Southern oil barons. Nymeria emigrated over and immediately discovered oil on her apparently shitty piece of land. Thousands of acres dedicated to drilling and cattle ranching. Awful for the environment but greenwash the fuck out of their business. Good at being a man of the ppl despite literally being in the one percent. Very publicly donate to progressive charities and causes to offset the backlash they get from pay the people who work for them slave wages. People stan them on Twitter because they’re hot and not like other billionaires.

Baratheons: slightly newer money but old enough to have no excuse to act the way they do. Loud annoying displays of wealth. Made their fortune mostly because they were good at being overly aggressive when it came to the stock market or sales or smthn idk what they do. Robert buys an egregious house in Florida where him and some other rich repulsive republicans do Labor Day weekend on their yachts with women they paid to be there. Absolutely terrible at saving their money (except Stannis and kinda Renly) and quite literally have to have their accounts frozen by their investment bankers. Actively going bankrupt.

Greyjoys: Not even rich anymore. Had a sizable shipping company at one point before they got poached bought out by the Lannisters. Also they engaged in too much tax fraud and embezzlement so now no one wants to touch them with a ten foot pole. Still live in their dilapidated cliffside house that’s literally ab to crumble into the sea. Theon got to live with the Starks bc once the Greyjoys got audited Ned felt bad.

Targaryens: REAL old money that stretches back like at least 500 years. Have had multiple income sources over the years and almost all of it is blood money of some kind and extracted through violence :) Giant ass portraits of their ancestors in their multiple residences, they all speak Valyrian at home, and they don’t even go to school it’s just private tutors. Obscene wealth that isn’t even fathomable to most people. Famously bred race horses and hunting dogs for a while until there was some familial infighting about ownership of the racetracks and stables and that collapsed. Got audited and investigated twenty years ago and Aerys just killed himself instead of going to jail.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 11, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 12, 2024

Yesterday, President Joe Biden spoke at the Brookings Institution, where he gave a major speech on the American economy. He contrasted his approach with the supply-side economics of the forty years before he took office, an approach the incoming administration of Donald Trump has said he would reinstate. Biden urged Trump and his team not to destroy the seeds of growth planted over the past four years. And he laid out the extraordinary successes of his administration as a benchmark going forward.

The president noted that Trump is inheriting a strong economy. Biden shifted the U.S. economy from 40 years of supply-side economics that had transferred about $50 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1% and hollowed out the middle class.

By investing in the American people, the Biden team expanded the economy from “the middle out and the bottom up,” as Biden says, and created an economy that he rightfully called “the envy of the world.” Biden listed the numbers: more than 16 million new jobs, the most in any four-year presidential term in U.S. history; low unemployment; a record 20 million applications for the establishment of new businesses; the stock market hitting record highs.

Biden called out that in the two years since Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, the private sector has jumped on the public investments to invest more than a trillion dollars in clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

Disruptions from the pandemic—especially the snarling of supply chains—and Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine created a global spike in inflation; the administration brought those rates back to around the Fed’s target of 2%.

Biden pointed out that “[l]ike most…[great] economic developments, this one is neither red nor blue, and America’s progress is everyone’s progress.”

But voters’ election of Donald Trump last month threatens Biden’s reworking of the economy. Trump and his team embrace the supply-side economics Biden abandoned. They argue that the way to nurture the economy is to free up money at the top of the economy through deregulation and tax cuts. Investors will then establish new industries and jobs more efficiently than they could if the government intervened. Those new businesses, the theory goes, will raise wages for all Americans and everyone will thrive.

Trump and MAGA Republicans have made it clear they intend to restore supply-side economics.

The first priority of the incoming Republican majority is to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, many of which are due to expire in 2025. Those tax cuts added almost $2 trillion to budget deficits, but there is little evidence that they produced the economic growth their supporters promised. At the same time, the income tax cuts delivered an average tax cut of $252,300 to households in the top 0.1%, $61,090 to households in the top 1%, but just $457 to the bottom 60% of American households. The corporate tax cuts were even more skewed to the wealthy.

In the Washington Post yesterday, Catherine Rampell noted that Republicans’ claim that extending those cuts isn’t extraordinarily expensive means “getting rid of math.”

At a time when Republicans like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are leading the new “Department of Government Efficiency,” are clamoring for cuts of $2 trillion from the budget, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the tax cuts will add more than $4 trillion to the federal budget over the next ten years. Republicans who will chair the House and Senate finance committees, Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), say that extending the cuts shouldn’t count as adding to the deficit because they would simply be extending the status quo.

Trump has also indicated he plans to turn the country over to billionaires, both by putting them into government and by letting them act as they wish. Last night, on social media, President-elect Trump posted: “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”

Biden called out the contrast between these two economic visions, saying that the key question for the American people is “do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, investing in all of America and Americans, supporting unions and working families as we have the past four years? Or do we…backslide to an economy that’s benefited those at the top, while working people and the middle class struggle…for a fair share of growth and [for an] economic theory that encouraged industries and…livelihoods to be shipped overseas?”

Biden explained that for decades Republicans had slashed taxes for the very wealthy and the biggest corporations while cutting public investment in infrastructure, education, and research and development. Jobs and factories moved overseas where labor was cheaper. To offset the costs of tax cuts, Biden said, ‘advocates of trickle-down economics ripped the social safety net by trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare, trying to deny access to affordable health care and prescription drugs.” He added, “Lifting the fortunes of the very wealthy often meant taking the rights of workers away to unionize and bargain collectively.”

This approach to the economy “meant rewarding short-termism in pursuit of short-term profits [and] extraordinary high executive pay, instead of making long-term investments…. As a consequence, our…infrastructure fell…behind. A flood of cheap imports hollowed out our factory towns.”

“Economic opportunity and innovation became more concentrated in [a] few major cities, while the heartland and communities were left behind. Scientific discoveries and inventions developed in America were commercialized in countries like China, bolstering their manufacturing investment and jobs instead of [our] economy. Even before the pandemic, this economic agenda was clearly failing. Working- and middle-class families were being hurt.”

“[W]hen the pandemic hit,” Biden said, “we found out how vulnerable America was.” Supply chains failed, and prices soared.

Biden told the audience that he “came into office with a different vision for America…: grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up; invest in America and American products. And when that happens, everybody does…well…no matter where they lived, whether they went to college or not.”

“I was determined to restore U.S. leadership in industries of the future,” he said. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act “mark the most significant investment in America since the New Deal,” with new factories bringing good jobs that are rejuvenating towns that had been left behind in the past decades. Biden said he required that the government buy American goods as the country invested in “modernizing our roads; our bridges; our ports; our airports; our clean water system; affordable, high-speed Internet systems; and so much more.”

Eighty percent of working-age Americans have jobs, and the average after-tax income is up almost $4,000 since before the pandemic, significantly outpacing inflation.

Biden and his team worked to restore competition in the economy—just today, the huge grocery chain Albertsons gave up on its merger with another huge grocery chain, Kroger, after Biden’s Federal Trade Commission sued to block the merger because it would raise prices and lower workers’ wages by eliminating competition—and their negotiations with big pharma have dramatically cut the costs of prescription drugs for seniors. The administration cut junk fees, capping the cost of overdraft fees, for example, from an average of $35 a month to $5.

Biden quoted Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Stephen Henriques in Time magazine a month ago, saying: “President-elect Trump is receiving the strongest economy in modern history, which is the envy of the world.”

In his speech, Biden noted that it would be “politically costly and economically unsound” to disrupt the decisions and investments the nation has made over the past four years, and he urged Trump to leave them in place. “Will the next president stop a new electric battery factory in Liberty, North Carolina, that will create thousands of jobs?” he asked. “[W]ill we deny seniors living in red states $35-a-month insulin?”

In their article, Sonnenfeld and Henriques noted: “President Trump will likely claim he waved a magic wand on January 20 and the economic clouds cleared,” and they urged people: “Don’t Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy.”

Biden gave yesterday’s speech in part to put down benchmarks against which we should measure Trump’s economic policies. “During my presidency, we created [16] million new jobs in America” and saw “the lowest average unemployment rate of…any administration in 50 years.” Economic growth has been a strong 3% on average, and inflation is near 2 percent, he said.

“[T]hese are simple, well-established economic benchmarks used to measure the strength of any economy, the success or failure of any president’s four years in office. They’re not political, rhetorical opinions. They’re just facts,” Biden said, “simple facts. As President Reagan called them, ‘stubborn facts.’”

Biden is willing to bet that if the American people pay attention to those facts, they will recognize that his approach to the economy, rather than supply-side economics, works best for everyone.

Today the NASDAQ Composite index, which focuses on tech stocks, broke 20,000 for the first time.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[phoenixyfriend]

I have a tax structure concept in my mind and I'm not sure if it would even function as a policy but. I am rotating it.

So one of the reasons a lot of wealthy people get away with paying minimal taxes is because a lot of their money is tied up in investments, so their net worth can be 2 billion but they're only paying taxes on the $400k they make in a year because they aren't actively selling the investments, right?

I think that a possible partial solution to this is that the tax rate is based on the net worth. You don't tax the investments themselves, necessarily, but if your net worth is… IDK over 10mil, your effective tax rate on your income is 90%, even if the annual income itself is something like 200k.

It still not a great solution to billionaires existing, but it does introduce some kind of penalty for amassing wealth.

It also, admittedly, has minimal effect on people who act as though they've made all of 10k because they supposedly lost more money than they earned. [Side-eyes Warren Buffet]

It's like… idk. It's a policy concept that I haven't thought through but has probably been trialed somewhere in the world.

It would probably result in them moving assets offshore to try and hide them from the government, or putting them into a 'philanthropic foundation' or something.

Thoughts? I haven't looked into whether it's been implemented with any success in other parts of the world.

[darkmaga-returns]

By now, we are all aware of the plans of the mad scientists and billionaires to cover (CO2 absorbing) pasture and crop land with onshore wind turbines and solar plants. We are also aware of the intent to remove livestock – cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens – so that we ear bugs and ay land not polluted with solar panels and wind turbines is returned to nature for “rewilding”. We have seen how, in the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a huge sponsor of wind turbines that kill birds.

Here is an article that highlights the continuing war on farmers in the UK – via the inheritance tax that taxes unrealised capital gains – forcing the farms to be sold if there is insufficient cash to pay the inheritance tax calculated by bureaucrats.

Pay particular attention to the verbiage here:

“Inheritors will have to pay 20% of the value of the agricultural and business property above £1million. Having tax exemptions currently costs "about £1bn a year for taxpayers", according to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones.”

“Taxation exemption costs…”!!! Hey Mr Jones, it’s not your effing money! What you are doing is not “closing an exemption”, it is imposing a tax that did not previously exist! The argument here s that “society” is being cheated by people who have accumulated wealth in the value of farms – regardless of the ups and downs of the land owned by the farm or whether the value is in livestock or solar panels/wind turbines!

All taxation is theft. No money paid to the State is the State’s by right – it is a privilege granted by voters.

In my view, VAT is a tax imposed on the country in order for it to join the EU. The UK is no longer in the EU, ergo, VAT should be abolished. It acts as a trade tariff for imports and has increased the cost of living by its percentage rate.

Mind you, it is also my view that government spending, especially on health, needs to be reduced by at least half and that taxation should be simplified to abolish ALL customs and excise duties, tobacco or alcohol taxes, or road taxes, TV license fees and there should be a flat corporate and income tax rate of 15% with NO ALLOWANCES. Vote for me!

[hillaryisaboss]

I care about the issues, the policies, & the administration — I don’t care about age or a single 90-minute debate performance — I care about the performance as President.

Democrats are acting like our nominee just became a convicted felon & that we should abandon him… oh wait… Republicans rallied to Trump after he became a felon because they (for better or worse) like that Trump will continue gun policies that kill school children, ban abortion nationwide, ruin the climate & our planet, steal seats on the Supreme Court, give billionaires tax-breaks, & deny healthcare to millions of low-income children.

Trump refused to admit he lost the Presidency in 2020 & sent a mob to the White House to overturn the election results. I’ll pick “old” over *THAT* any day of the week.

[mariacallous]

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act brought a major overhaul to U.S. tax code. The corporate tax rate was slashed to 21% from 35%, individual income tax rates were cut, and the standard deduction was increased.

Now, analysis in 2018 found that the cuts would boost the economy, but the effect would fizzle out quickly. And the price tag would be huge. The bill is expected to add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit by 2028.

Many of the household tax reforms included in the bill expire in 2025, meaning that whoever wins the election will have the opportunity to either fight to extend the legislation or let it lapse.

Trump has shown interest in making his tax rules permanent. Biden would likely preserve some of the tax cuts, namely those benefitting households making less than $400,000 a year.

The cuts have the largest benefits for the wealthy and for small business owners, but there are also provisions that benefit middle-income Americans like the increased standard deduction and Child Tax Credit.

An important effect of extending the 2017 tax cuts is that it’s estimated to cost an extra $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Without significantly cutting services, the federal debt would balloon to 211% of GDP by 2054, compared to about 100% of GDP right now.

Trump has actually pledged to make even more tax cuts – if that happens, obviously the deficit would grow even faster and the debt would be even larger.

Biden’s proposed alternatives include several programs to lower taxes for those making under $400,000 a year while also raising taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans. Efforts to target corporations include raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, increasing enforcement of tax avoidance by multinationals, and quadrupling the stock buyback tax.

His plan would also affect the highest-earning Americans, including a 25% minimum income tax on billionaires. All together, Biden’s policies would raise about $5 trillion in revenue by 2034.

While there is some overlap between the two candidate’s goals, the long-term effects on the federal debt and deficits couldn’t be more different.

[no-passaran]

As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion. The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional. For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust. Bullying among schoolchildren is around six times as common in more-unequal countries. The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway. Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high. These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation. They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs. The costs of inequality are also excruciatingly high for governments. For example, the Equality Trust, a charity based in London, estimated that the United Kingdom alone could save more than £100 billion ($126 billion) per year if it reduced its inequalities to the average of those in the five countries in the OECD that have the smallest income differentials — Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. And that is considering just four areas: greater number of years lived in full health, better mental health, reduced homicide rates and lower imprisonment rates. Many commentators have drawn attention to the environmental need to limit economic growth and instead prioritize sustainability and well-being. Here we argue that tackling inequality is the foremost task of that transformation. Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies. (...)

The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes. First, governments should choose progressive forms of taxation, which shift economic burdens from people with low incomes to those with high earnings, to reduce inequality and to pay for the infrastructure that the world needs to transition to carbon neutrality and sustainability. (...) International agreements to close tax havens and loopholes must be made. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost poor countries $100 billion per year — enough to educate an extra 124 million children and prevent perhaps 8 million maternal and infant deaths annually. (...) Bans on advertising tobacco, alcohol, gambling and prescription drugs are common internationally, but taxes to restrict advertising more generally would help to reduce consumption. Energy costs might also be made progressive by charging more per unit at higher levels of consumption. Legislation and incentives will also be needed to ensure that large companies — which dominate the global economy — are run more fairly. For example, business practices such as employee ownership, representation on company boards and share ownership, as well as mutuals and cooperatives, tend to reduce the scale of income and wealth inequality. (...)

More in-depth explanation for the reasons behind the fragment I've included in this post can be found in the article linked above, as well as the sources for all the claims.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump's economic proposals make "voodoo economics" look totally legit.

And if you disagree with Trump, you're obviously a communist.

All U.S. economists are communists now, says the GOP. Who knew?

Apparently, nearly every economist in America is a communist now. At least so says the Republican National Committee. Anna Kelly, an RNC spokeswoman, recently declared: “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Never mind that Trump called Xi Jinping the "greatest Chinese leader in 300 years".

Kelly was responding to warnings from legions of economists that Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would be paid by regular Americans. Their conclusion is based in part on the former president’s previous rounds of trade wars; multiple careful studiesfound that the costs of those tariffs were either mostly or entirely passed on to Americans in the form of higher prices. A more recent analysis estimated that his new tariff proposals would cost the median U.S. household an additional $1,700 per year.

Trump has some nitwits thinking that he will singlehandedly reduce the price of steak to 29¢ a pound. In fact, Trump policies would be a burden on consumers – except filthy rich ones.

But the modern GOP being what it is, party apparatchiks must defend every bone-headed idea their presumptive presidential nominee utters. Thus, critics must be “outsourcers” (which seems unlikely for most economists, who rarely own manufacturing plants) or, naturally, Marxists. The expected costs of Trump’s recent tariff proposals would be staggering. For example, his plan for a universal 10 percent tariff coupled with a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods would more than wipe out any savings most Americans would get from extending his 2017 income tax cuts, according to estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The bottom 80 percent of households would see a tax increase on net.

We have a chance to ditch Trump's tax breaks for the filthy rich if Trump isn't elected. Of course Trump would brefer to keep those tax breaks - that's why a majority of billionaires support him.

As a main source of revenue, tariffs are so pre-industrial. The Republican Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 made the Great Depression worse than it had to be.

Using high tariffs to replace taxes on the rich is regressive.

The math required for this to work would be nearly impossible. Right now, federal income taxes raise about $3 trillion per year. That means repealing them would leave a $3 trillion revenue hole to fill. But the entire value of all the goods we import each year is itself about $3 trillion. Not the tariffs, mind you, but the goods themselves. Trump could try to levy tariffs of 100 percent on every import, but remember that imports would decline as taxes on them rose. So even a global 100 percent tariff wouldn’t raise enough money. It would, however, cripple the U.S. economy, worsen inflation, make the tax system much more regressive and invite retaliation from our allies.

Trump is an idiot who declared bankruptcy six times. He is not an ingenious businessman but merely portrayed one on TV – with lots of help from editing of scenes.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson 11.25.24

Today, President Joe Biden laid out very clearly the argument behind the economic policies his administration has put into place. “When I took office, the pandemic was raging and the economy was reeling,” he wrote. “From Day One, I was determined to not only deliver economic relief, but to invest in America and grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down.”

“Over the last four years, that’s exactly what we’ve done,” he wrote. “We passed legislation to rebuild our infrastructure, build a clean energy economy, and bring manufacturing back to the United States after decades of offshoring.” Investing in America included the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that is rebuilding our roads, bridges, water systems, ports, and airports, as well as making high-speed broadband available in underserved areas; the CHIPS and Science Act that invested in bringing the manufacture of silicon chips back to the U.S. and promoting research; and the Inflation Reduction Act, which invested in technologies to combat climate change.

Today the White House announced that this federal investment has attracted more than $1 trillion in private-sector investments. “These investments in industries of the future,” Biden wrote, “are ensuring the future is made in America, by American workers.” 

He noted that more than 1.6 million construction and manufacturing jobs have been created over the last four years and that “our investments are making America a leader in clean energy and semiconductor technologies that will protect our economic and national security, while expanding opportunities in red states and blue states.”

In a White House memo, White House deputy chief of staff Natalie Quillian wrote: “The progress we've made...represents only a fraction of the full impact of this agenda. If future Administrations continue to implement at the pace we have, people across the country will enjoy the benefits of safer water, cleaner air, faster internet, and smoother commutes.”

But the incoming Trump administration will advance a different economic vision. Instead of trying to expand the economy through investment in infrastructure and manufacturing, Trump’s team has emphasized cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations and slashing regulations.

The argument behind this approach to the economy is that concentrating wealth in the hands of investors will spur more investment, while creating an environment that’s “friendly” to business will create jobs. Jack Brook of the Associated Press reported that earlier this month, the state of Louisiana illustrated what this policy looks like to ordinary people when it cut income taxes to a flat 3% rate, reducing revenue by about $1.3 billion. They made up that revenue by increasing the sales tax to 5%, thus shifting the burden of taxation to lower- and middle-class families. “Louisiana just became a much more attractive place to do business,” Louisiana economic development secretary Susan Bourgeois told Brook.

It is becoming clear what Trump’s economic policy will look like at the national level. Super wealthy donors funded Trump’s 2024 campaign, and in a departure from every previous incoming president, Trump is refusing to sign the documents required as part of a presidential transition at least in part because those documents mandate that he disclose who is funding his transition and limit those donations to $5,000 per donor. Without that disclosure, it is impossible to see who is funding him. For all we know, that list could include foreign governments. 

As activist Melanie D’Arrigo put it on Bluesky: “‘Secret donations’ are bribes. The hundreds of millions he received from Elon Musk and other billionaires are also bribes. There’s a reason Donald Trump isn’t signing ethics pledges.” Indeed, after his first term, the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington concluded that “there is absolutely no doubt that Trump tried at every turn to use the presidency to benefit his bottom line,” and noted that those who spent money at Trump’s properties often received favorable policy decisions from the administration. 

During the campaign, Trump promised to fight for ordinary Americans, but many of Trump’s picks to fill offices in his administration are notable for their extreme wealth. His pick for treasury secretary is billionaire Scott Bessent, a hedge fund executive who invested money for philanthropist George Soros for more than ten years. To head the Commerce Department, Trump has tapped billionaire Howard Lutnick, the chief executive officer of financial giant Cantor Fitzgerald.

Trump’s choice for education secretary, Linda McMahon, and his choice for Interior Secretary, North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, are both billionaires. And then there are the two men Trump tapped for his Department of Government Efficiency. Former pharmaceutical executive Vivek Ramaswamy is worth around a billion dollars, but Elon Musk is usually at the top of the list of the richest people in the world. He’s worth about $332.6 billion. Trump is expected to tap donor Kelly Loeffler, who is married to billionaire Jeff Sprecher, the chair of the New York Stock Exchange, as Secretary of Agriculture. 

Laura Mannweiler of U.S. News and World Report today estimated the worth of Trump’s current roster of appointees to be at least $344.4 billion, more than the gross domestic product of 169 countries. That number does not include Bessent, whose net worth is hard to find. In comparison, Mannweiler notes, the total net worth of the officials in Biden’s Cabinet was about $118 million. 

Economist Robert Reich noted yesterday that the wealth of America’s 815 billionaires grew by nearly $280 billion after Trump’s reelection, and the president-elect is promising to extend the 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire in 2025. Now, after all their complaints about the budget deficits under Biden as he invested in the country, Republicans are, according to Andrew Duehren of the New York Times, considering rejiggering the government’s accounting so that extending the tax cuts, which will create about $4 trillion in deficits, shows up as not costing anything. 

Deregulation, too, is on the agenda. It’s a cause close to the heart of Elon Musk, who frequently complains that unnecessary regulations are making it impossible for visionary entrepreneurs to develop the technological sector as quickly and efficiently as they could otherwise. 

In the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Susan Pulliam, Emily Glazer, and Becky Peterson noted that although Musk says his goal is to “protect life on Earth,” his companies “show a pattern of breaking environmental rules again and again.” The authors report that Tesla’s facility in Fremont, California, has received “more warnings for violations of air pollution rules over the past five years than almost any other company’s plant in California,” 112 of them. Federal regulators recently fined SpaceX for dumping about 262,000 gallons of wastewater into protected wetlands in Texas. Tesla, too, has dumped contaminated water into public sewer systems.  

One staffer for environmental compliance told the Environmental Protection Agency that ““Tesla repeatedly asked me to lie to the government so that they could operate without paying for proper environmental controls.”   

People who have worked with Musk “for years” told Pulliam, Glazer, and Peterson that they expect Musk will try to cut environmental regulations, especially the ones that affect his companies. After Trump announced that he was creating DOGE and putting Musk in charge of it, Musk posted: “We finally have a mandate to delete the mountain of choking regulations that do not serve the greater good.” 

Musk’s companies have brought in at least $15.4 billion in federal contracts over the past decade, and his companies have been targeted in at least 20 government investigations recently. Eric Lipton, David A. Fahrenthold, Aaron Krolik, and Kristen Grind of the New York Times note that Trump’s victory and his appointment of Musk to an oversight role in the government “essentially give[s] the world’s richest man and a major government contractor the power to regulate the regulators who hold sway over his companies, amounting to a potentially enormous conflict of interest.”

Today, Sara Murray, Kristen Holmes, and Kate Sullivan of CNN reported that Trump’s lawyers have conducted an investigation into whether top Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn has been selling access to Trump. Payments for his promotion of candidates for administration positions or access to administration officials were as much as $100,000 a month. The lawyers recommended that the Trump team should jettison Epshteyn, but it has apparently decided not to. 

“I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team,” Epshteyn said in a statement to CNN. “These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again.”

Today, special prosecutor Jack Smith moved to drop both federal cases against Trump: the federal election case for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and the case concerning Trump’s retention of highly classified documents after he left office in 2021. Trump had said he would break the usual norms around special counsels when he returns to office—Biden retained the special counsel investigating his son, Hunter—and fire Smith. 

But Smith pointed to the position of the Department of Justice that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted as a reason for the cases’ dismissal. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant,” he wrote. “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed.” Smith left open the possibility that the charges could be brought again in the future after Trump leaves office.

Trump’s approach to the cases was to delay and delay and delay in hopes voters would return him to the White House, and it appears his strategy worked.

As democracy lawyer Marc Elias wrote: “Justice delayed was justice denied.”

—

[kick-the-clouds]

The Ultra-Wealthy are Parasites

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. It's not just a saying; it's a harsh reality that's tearing our society apart. Imagine a world where a handful of people have more money than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes, while millions struggle to put food on the table. This is our world, and it's getting worse every day.

Billionaires aren't just wealthy; they're wealth hoarders. Since 2020, the top 1% have snatched up nearly two-thirds of all new wealth created globally. That's like taking 63 slices of a 100-slice pie, leaving only 37 for everyone else. And this pie isn't getting bigger for most people. While CEO pay skyrocketed by over 900% from 1978 to 2018, regular workers saw a measly 11.9% increase. The math is simple: the gap is widening at an alarming rate.

The damage spreads like a disease through generations. Children born into poverty are likely to stay poor. Their parents can't afford good education or healthcare. They grow up in neighborhoods with fewer opportunities. The cycle continues, and the wealth gap becomes a chasm. It's a mathematical certainty: compound interest works for the rich, while compound disadvantage crushes the poor.

Environmental devastation follows the money trail. The wealthiest 1% produce twice as much carbon emissions as the poorest half of humanity. Climate change hits the poor hardest, creating a vicious cycle. Floods destroy homes. Droughts kill crops. The rich can adapt, but the poor suffer. Over time, this environmental injustice multiplies, creating climate refugees and exacerbating global inequality.

Democracy itself is under siege. Billionaires buy influence like it's on sale. They fund campaigns, lobby for laws, and shape public opinion through media ownership. One dollar, one vote becomes the unspoken rule. The will of the many is drowned out by the wallets of the few. Year after year, this erodes the foundation of our society, turning democracy into a plutocracy.

The numbers are staggering, the human cost immeasurable. A mere 5% tax on the ultra-rich could raise $1.7 trillion annually. That's enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty. Instead, we watch as the middle class shrinks, with their share of income falling from 62% to 43% in just five decades. Each year this continues, millions more fall into despair.

It's not just inhumane; it's mathematically unsustainable. Like a game of Monopoly, it ends with one player owning everything. But unlike a game, we can't just reset the board. The devastation accumulates, compounding like interest on a debt we can never repay. Families fall into poverty. Communities crumble. Entire regions become wastelands of lost potential.

We must act now. Every day we wait, the problem grows exponentially. The math is clear, the story it tells is heartbreaking. We're not just losing money; we're losing lives, dreams, and the very fabric of our society. It's time to rewrite this story, to use math for good, to calculate a future where everyone has a chance to thrive. The alternative is too cruel to contemplate.

[stressed-depressed-and-bored]

People always say “who is going to pay for it?” as if it’s some profound “gotcha!”

The rich. The rich can pay for it. They did in the past and they can do it again.

In the 1930s and 1940s the United States was facing a debt crisis much like todays. The government was running out of money coming out of the Great Depression and going into World War 2, and the economy wasn’t doing too well. Everything was falling apart, much like it is now. What was the solution?

And it worked. The US working middle class and the economy did awesome well through the 50s and 60s. The working middle class was wealthier than ever before and wealthier than it’s ever been. Regular people like you and me. Public infrastructure flourished. States had the budgets to build free colleges. College used to be free by the way. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s advisors warned him how “dangerous” an “educated proletariat” was (those are his words), that major universities started to see cuts in public funding and had to start charging tuition.

Today, the top 1% is only taxed at 43% and has been dropping since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reagan also set the precedent of ignoring labor and union rights, violating both domestic (NLRA, Wagner Act) and international (United Nations bill of rights) law. This too has only ever been made worse by Republican policy as time has gone on with yet more tax cuts for the wealthy. Look up the actual policies. Don’t take a politicians word, read their actual policy. They will and do lie to you.

Do y’all understand now why the US debt is going up so fast? It’s because Trump cut that tax rate even more, amassing a whopping 20% of our current total national debt within only 4 years. The debt ceiling was raised THREE TIMES during Trump’s presidency, the uppermost tax bracket was cut even more, and massive corporate bailout loans were forgiven. Research the PPE loans. This has been Republican policy for 40+ years.

The systemic deconstruction of the middle class and the government in favor of corporate control. We are living in a repeat of the Gilded Age of the Industrial Revolution. The railroads and the banks own and control everything, including the government.

These are facts. Read it in any history book.

Or you can just ban those books too and pretend it didn’t happen. That would be a mistake though.

If you wanna know how our economy has REALLY been doing for the last 40 years, I suggest looking into the Economic Policy Institute. Or ask any working class American how they have been doing lately, especially those of us who are young, trying to make it.

Our current struggle is not caused by the “Woke Mob” as propaganda outlet Fox News will tell you.

(Do any of you even know what “woke” means? It means you are aware and attentive to the fact that systematic societal issues and flaws exist. Wether it be race issues, income issues, whatever. Being “woke” literally means you’re not a sheep who follows along anything that the media and government tell you. Thats what it means. Literally look it up. I grew up as this word came to popularity. It’s been around for a very long time. The GOP is taking advantage of the fact that you don’t know what it is, and using it as a fear mongering tactic to channel your anger at your neighbor instead of the corporations pulling the strings. It is corporate propaganda).

Our current struggle is caused by the class warfare waged by corporate scum as they buy all of our politicians in return for bailing out the government’s debt. Both left and right, our politicians have been bought. None of them work for you. They work for the big corporations lining their pockets through unlimited lobbying.

So, when y’all say “I don’t wanna pay for it”- don’t worry, you aren’t going to be paying for it. The middle class will not be paying for it. The multi-billionaire corporations stealing your labor will be paying for it. The rich goons who increase the price of your groceries and lay you off all in the name of making a few extra bucks will be paying for it.

Do some research and you’ll see exactly why and when we got into this mess.

It’s not that complicated. It really isn’t.

Tax. The. Rich.

[destinyc1020]

I think people would be able to have more savings if wasn't for student loans tbh. That whole thing is so predatory to me as an outsider. Also don't actors have to pay managers, publicists, agents etc? Its not as simple as just getting paid 1M and keeping all of it from an acting job. Then the taxes come in, where the billionaires get loopholes and those in the in the middle and lower income brackets are paying more than their fair share because of it. Bottom line everything seems to lead back to greedy ceos tbh

THANK YOU! 👏🏾

Student loans are for sure predatory! 🥴 I didn't realize it when I was going to University at the time, but after you graduate and see your paycheck get eaten up for years having to pay student loan debt, you start to recognize. 👀

Thankfully, I didn't have to incur nearly as much student loan debt as some of my peers since I had a few scholarships and govt-funded programs, but I still incurred debt!

It seems silly that the group of ppl that are just now getting out into the work force with the least amount of experience, so the least amount of pay is also the group that is already starting BEHIND the start line cuz you're getting out of college with debt. 🙄😒

Makes no sense whatsoever.

You spoke a word with this entire ask Anon. 💯