Tom Ultican has turned his talents to understanding the damage that a large number of billionaires has inflicted on American education and American society. He proposes that we tax them out of existence with their assets used to reduce poverty and inequality.
He names names and demands accountability for their vast wealth.
in a capitalist society, vast wealth controls vast power. This concentration of wealth and power contradicts the basic premise of our society as a democracy where each person gets only one vote, where there is equality of opportunity.
(I posted this yesterday but am reposting to correct errors introduced by auto-correct.)
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“One dollar, one vote”
The premise of the land
Is ” dollar equals vote”
A principle that’s grand
A principle of note
LikeLike
The premise was encoded
In country at the start
And Court has newly voted
To bolster what’s at heart
LikeLike
“David Osborne
Another reason we should balance test scores with other measures of school quality, giving test scores only about half the weight in our school accountability systems.”
Amusing. I knew this would happen because it’s already happening in Ohio.
As ed reform becomes more and more about fragmentation and privatization of K-12 education, ed reform will become less and less about “accountability”
Because the two things are in direct conflict, and their whole “movement” is rapidly approaching complete incoherence.
We’ll soon be reaching the point where the only publicly funded schools ed reformers will be policing will be public schools. We’re already seeing them exempt the private schools they prefer from their elaborate accountability schemes in Florida and Ohio. When they reach the goal of low value vouchers for everyone instead of “public education” it will be completely deregulated. It has to be.
LikeLike
Since the system is rigged against public education, public school students should just refuse to take the tests that are used to justify closing public schools. It is a sham so that the privatizers can keep grabbing more students to transfer them into private charter schools. Public school parents need to start acting like Long Island parents. They are simply refusing to play the game.
LikeLike
I’m watching the ed reform ideology descend into complete incoherence in Ohio.
The same ed reformers who are aggressively pushing unregulated vouchers to go to any entity that calls itself a “school” are ALSO AND AT THE SAME TIME moving to aggressively police public schools to ban “wokeness”.
Ludicrous. Do they know none of their agenda hangs together in any logical way and now is wholly driven by ideology? How would they know? It’s an echo chamber. They allow no dissenters in the ranks.
How long will public schools accept being harshly policed by the professional public school critics of ed reform when ed reformers push deregulation and vouchers, but ONLY for the schools they prefer?
LikeLike
Why should public schools accept the ed reform echo chamber policing what is taught in public schools?
Ed reformers don’t police what is taught in publicly funded private schools.
Is there even going to be an attempt to make sense of this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with getting rid of public schools is then ed reformers and other regulators can’t reach the private schools that are slated to replace them.
Which kids are they going to test and police? Just the students who attend the unfashionable and ideologically incorrect public schools? That hardly seems fair, or valid, really.
LikeLike
Not to change the momentum, but to add a nuance: PBS showed a documentary yesterday (during the Oscars) about the push to privatize public lands in the U.S., which is long-term but, since Reagan’s time, on a vertical uptick via forces and methods that mirror those of education “reformers.”
Interesting were their several references to the work of ALEC in writing cut-and-paste legislation for state legislators–using the same language for every State.
They are intent on wresting control of public lands FROM the federal government and its land management TO state legislators, and then (with the help of ALEC) right into the unregulated hands of oil, gas, and mineral industries . . . whose main but covert mission is: Rape and Run.
The problem of misguided Ayn Randian-type, predatory capitalism is huge and includes but goes way beyond education. CBK
LikeLike
We fought wars and sacrificed lives to protect democracy against autocracy. Now it is festering from within.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, Darrell
LikeLike
One thing that the billionaires have also hijacked is the so-called “experts” who the media rely on for a quote as if those so-called experts’ lucrative careers in think tanks or organizations is not entirely at the whim (and largesse) of those billionaires.
I have no doubt that most of the so-called “education experts” quoted in the media who promote ed reform right now would immediately turn around and support public schools and demand the dismantling of charter schools stat if those very same billionaires suddenly got religion and decided to oppose privatization and support think tanks dedicated to opposing ed reform and privatization. Those experts support whatever the billionaires support and ignore all information that doesn’t agree with that. And so do their enablers in the media (I’m looking at you, NYT)
So many minions who enable those billionaires whose main concern is their own bank accounts. What happens to kids is only their concern if it is the concern of the billionaires whose desires are their guiding light.
LikeLike
And Arne Duncan has become a preferred public figure selected by the social media as if an expert in education. He is the master of everything wrong in education and poses as if an expert.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Expert
An expert at the jump-shot
And expert at the layup
And expert at the dunkin’
The Expert, Arne Duncan
LikeLike
key words most able to hurt the nation: “AS IF”
LikeLike
ciedie,
That’s why I included the co-opted media, without whom this would not be possible. They gave credibility to Trump and his angry white followers for years, and only after the horse left the barn are reporters sometimes willing to stop their “both sides have valid points” reporting. For years, the major media kept telling us that Trump supporting racists who hate democracy and democrats both have equally valid facts on their side.
Look at how Eliza Shapiro at the NYT jumps through hoops to find some way to justify why she disregards everything Diane Ravitch says as simply an opinion by a biased source. Contrast this with how she includes ed reform propaganda about “high test scores” as if it were fact. Diane Ravitch is a scholar who had done copious research and changed her views based on facts, but Eliza Shapiro treats her like a paid shill of the teachers union.
But when it comes to education reformers and the scholars and experts that billionaires support, Eliza Shapiro dutifully reports their remarks without even bothering to mention the many fact that call their very biased opinions into questions.
In short, real scholars are treated as paid shills, and the paid shills are treated like experts! But I have no doubt that if the very same billionaires who are paying those “experts” suddenly took their money away and starting paying people who support public education instead, the NYT would suddenly find that people who support public education were the unbiased experts!
LikeLike
Yes, and until a few years ago, the press kept dragging out Henry Kissinger as the great expert on foreign policy.
LikeLike
But it is galling, horrifying, every time I see that some so-called journalist has had Barack’s basketball buddy weigh in on education. Duncan is an utter moron.
LikeLike
Arnie Duncan & John King are the media go-to Democrats who legitimize privatization for Democrat voters & teachers union leadership.
John King is running for MD Gov & Obama is stumping for him. Where are the teacher’s unions on this? https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2021-04-20/former-education-secretary-john-king-announces-bid-for-maryland-governor
LikeLike
John King & the Arne Duncan’s policies are the opposite of equity. Their Race to the Top testing & charter policies did serious harm to the rights guaranteed in IDEA for children with disabilities & for children at -risk for learning problems. Yet, here is King being marketed as if he cares about “every” child.
“If elected, he would be the first Black governor of Maryland.
King, who’s spent the last four years as president and CEO of The Education Trust focusing on education inequality, is drawing on his vast experience as an educator to bolster his campaign – and he’s already drawing some big name endorsements.
“He’s been an educator all his life – a teacher, a principal,” former President Barack Obama said, endorsing King in the opening to a campaign video posted to social media. “He shares our commitment to preparing every child for success.”
LikeLike
Sounds like you’re a full-fledged collectivist/communist.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 9:01 AM Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” Tom Ultican has turned his talents to understanding > the damage that a large number of billionaires has inflicted on American > education and American society. He proposes that we tax them out of > existence with their assets used to reduce poverty and inequ” >
LikeLike
If I am a collectivist, so was Dwight D. Eisenhower. When he was president, the typical CEO made about 25 times the wages of the average worker. Today the average CEO makes more than 1,000 times the average worker.
LikeLike
Jim Waters- is he the person funded by the Koch network?
Did Charles Koch’s father profit off of the victims of Stalin’s regime?
LikeLike
So, the choice, Jim, is between having oligarchs control everyone else’s lives and communism? Wake TF up.
LikeLike
It’s wonderful, Jim, that you seek to avoid communism. I, for one, will take a backyard barbecue over borscht any day. Like Diane said about Eisenhower, though, the opposite of communism isn’t free market capitalism. The opposite of communism is fascism. Tiki torches belong in the backyard with the burgers and corn on the cob, not in the street with the white nationalist rally. Giving away public utilities and services to the wealthy, creating ultimate power for the few in return for political favor is what you do if you hate minorities and throw tantrums. Robustly progressive taxation is Constitutional and as American as apple pie and calling everyone you meet a communist.
LikeLike
Leftcoast, clearly, you haven’t had a well-made borscht.
LikeLike
Actually, no, I haven’t. I’ve had borscht from a jar. Nasty stuff. Sour cream didn’t help at all.
LikeLike
You are both so sadly misinformed. Doctrinaire communism was a product of German exiles in England. They had no clue about borsht. None whatsoever. Now get back to me if it’s about split pea soups with ham hocks, bone marrow soup, or kidney or eel pie (the latter with parsley sauce). Now if they had been born some decades later, I might relent and give you chicken tikka masala. But that would be as crazy as referencing borscht.
LikeLike
“Operator, I’d like to make a collectivist call”
I used to be collective
When payphones were the thing
But now I am detective
To locate smartphone ring
LikeLike
Collectivist call::Party line
LikeLike
The vocational training ed reformers are pushing exclude labor unions:
https://www.the74million.org/article/manno-the-link-between-college-and-a-good-job-is-even-weaker-since-covid-19-here-are-some-new-more-effective-pathways-to-opportunity-employment/
Gosh, I wonder why?
“Bruno V. Manno is senior adviser to the Walton Family Foundation’s K-12 Program. Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to The 74. All but one of the programs mentioned above (Kenzie Academy) are members of the New Profit Learn to Earn Postsecondary Innovation for Equity Initiative supported by several foundations, including the Walton Family Foundation.”
Because they’re all on the Walton Family payroll?
Echo. Chamber. Purely ideological. Labor unions are barred from participation- they don’t have the correct politics.
I sincerely hope Biden ignores all these people. He was not elected to promote the agenda of the Walton Family.
LikeLike
You’re right to be leery of anything supported by the Waltons or published by the 74. But I have trouble understanding the problem with some of these programs. Of the 4 listed here, Kenzie is if anything the most suspicious [they postpone paying fees until students are earning $40k – that could hide a big problem]. Code Path provides “no-cost coding courses, mentorships and career support.” Generation USA provides “free 4 – 12 wk courses.” Building Futures (RI) says the partnering employers fund the student training. There are local comm colls & govt agencies involved, & not quite sure I get the anti-union message bit you infer…
So: I’m going to guess the part to dig into here is the manner of funding, & how/ who’s making a buck off it. The New Profit gig you mention backs and partners with social entrepreneurs. Social impact bonds? Venture capital?
LikeLike
The neoliberals are trying to move more services into the marketplace so the invisible hand can strangle the working class. This is impact investing, and the worst impact is that they take advantage of those that are needy and looking for opportunity. Wall St. will monetize every government function, if given the chance.
LikeLike
Keep an eye on this too:
“To make its programs accessible, Kenzie has income-share agreements with students, delaying tuition payment until they landed a job paying at least $40,000 a year. The program was recently purchased by Southern New Hampshire University, becoming a nonprofit operating division of SNHU.”
The Walton Family employees who make up the “ed reform movement” are pushing “apprenticeships” that load 17 year olds up with debt.
The same people who saddled every young person in the country with student loan debt for college are now seeking to load those who DON’T go to college up with debt too.
They’ve redefined “public education” as “any contractor who is paid by the public” and they’ll now redefine “apprenticeships” to mean “student loans”.
Looks like it was designed by the wealthiest people in the country, because it was! They all work for the same 5 people.
LikeLike
The wealthy have an outsized influence on policymakers. Loading up young people with debt benefits Wall St, not young people. The objective is to monetize everything for the working class. That is how the student debt problem became a crisis. Young people thought that getting a college education would lead to a good job. Sadly, for many it led to a meager job and lots of debt.
LikeLike
Chiara . . . it’s a little like a company store in a mining community. CBK
LikeLike
Aren’t George Soros and JB Pritzker billionaires? They’re the good guys. 🤓
LikeLike
And Bernie Sanders and other Democratic billionaires too? They’re good guys too. 🤓
LikeLike
Bernie Sanders is not a billionaire and he is willing to pay more in taxes. So yes, he is a good guy; he doesn’t get campaign contributions from the billionaires as other politicians do.
LikeLike
Bernie Sanders is a Bernianaire
LikeLike
Bernianhair
https://images.app.goo.gl/8XyBKgvg8Povcinx5
LikeLike
Bernie’s mittens cost at least a billion dollars. If he sold them, maybe he could pay off some of AOC’s college loan interest.
LikeLike
Bernie proposed a new bill called the “Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act” and you can sign a petition supporting it here: https://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/Tax_Excessive_CEO_Pay_Act/?
I think JB Pritzker is great, unlike his neoliberal sister, Penny. And yes, Soros IS one of the good guys –who often gets a bum rap based on lies and misinformation. Also, I read that Bernie is a millionaire primarily because his wife inherited that money.
LikeLike
Commenters on Diane’s blog have criticized neo-liberal corporate Democrats on countless times. Arne Duncan and Obama’s education policies were horrible as discussed here many, many times. So the point you are trying to make is invalid.
LikeLike
Eddie So it isn’t being a billionaire, but what matters is what billionaires do with their money? What else is new? CBK
LikeLike
Hi Catherine. 🙂 It seems that way. I’m curious who’s a good billionaire and bad billionaire. 😐
LikeLike
Eddie Troll away. CBK
LikeLike
I don’t troll Catherine. 🤓 As a Black American, I’m against all kinds of stereotypes. 😐
LikeLike
Eddie I’m happy for you. CBK
LikeLike
I want the Democratic Party back! It’s supposed to be the people’s party, not the hedge fund managers’ party. All billionaires should pay taxes at a much higher rate than everyone else, no matter which political party they enjoy playing with.
LikeLike
Just a reminder that a federal wealth tax is probably unconstitutional. Anyway, it would be for the Supreme Court to decide.
LikeLike
What is the reasoning for the federal wealth tax being “unconstitutional”?
I know that there are constitutional “experts” who would say it is so, because they find it quite advantageous to please the moneyed people who say it is.
If all billionaires were somehow struck by an angel who made them less greedy and those billionaires decided that the federal wealth tax was absolutely constitutional, and every politician who depended on their largesse had to either support a federal wealth tax or find their donations completely dried up, and every “expert” learned that they would no longer have their overpaid sinecures if they said that a wealth tax was “unconstitutional”, there would be very few experts saying that the wealth tax was “unconstitutional”.
I am trying to figure out why a 90%+ marginal tax rate would be constitutional under Eisenhower, but a wealth tax would not. I have no doubt that the anti-taxers can find many so-called “experts” who would swear that estate taxes are unconstitutional, period. And I also have no doubt that almost all those so-called experts would declare that estate taxes were constitutional if their generous benefactors wanted that view to be espoused.
There might be a few who were willing to work for small salaries and stay true to their beliefs that wealth tax was unconstitutional, but I bet there aren’t many.
I don’t really understand how a federal wealth tax is any more unconstitutional than a federal estate tax, but I suspect billionaires reward handsomely those who say both are illegal.
Look how many constitutional “experts” are richly rewarded for saying that the US Constitution protects the right to own assault weapons capable of gunning down hundreds of people in one minute, despite the fact that this country had federal gun control before the NRA changed from a gun owners’ education organization to one devoted to buying politicians and scholars who provide cover for their views.
I have no doubt that if the NRA and billionaires got together to decide that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own “guns” that shoot nuclear weapons, they could find plenty of constitutional “scholars” who would suddenly find it very lucrative to espouse a so-called scholarly argument to support Americans’ right to own nuclear “guns”.
The wealth tax is surely “unconstitutional”, just like forbidding someone from owning a nuclear-powered assault weapon is surely “unconstitutional”.
LikeLike
It’s a bit complicated to explain here, but it’s an easy Google. Short answer is that a wealth tax would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states based on their population (meaning that it would require huge tax rate variation among states). The Supreme Court held the federal income tax was unconstitutional for that reason, which is why the federal income tax came into being through a constitutional amendment. There are other views, but they would require reversing that Supreme Court precedent.
LikeLike
Thank you. But I think you are missing my point.
Was there a constitutional amendment for the federal estate tax? Does that mean it is unconstitutional, just like banning Americans from owning nuclear assault weapons is unconstitutional?
There was arguably no real need to pass the 16th Amendment, since there was an income tax before that during the Civil War. The 16th Amendment was just anti-taxers believing they had found a way to stop any federal income tax and learning to their dismay that they did not own enough state governments. Little did they realize that Citizens United would, in the future, allow them to own as many politicians as they wanted without anyone even knowing where the money was coming from.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court has held the estate tax is constitutional. You can find the opinion and subsequent case law.
I think you’re correct that I’m missing your point. The need for the 16th Amendment was that a federal law enacting an income tax was invalidated by the Supreme Court.
There’s a long history of this stuff that you can learn about if you’re interested. I’m not an expert.
LikeLike
^^^Also, I think the definition of “precedent” is in the eye of the beholder.
1861 Congress passes an income tax. Precedent? Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of the tax
1872 Congress repeals the income tax. (Notice it wasn’t struck down, but repealed by a vote, confirming that it would have continued to exist without a repeal.) Precedent?
1894 Congress enacts another income tax. Supreme Court rules 5-4 that it is “unconstitutional”, reversing the previous “precedent” by a single vote.
Just because an Amendment was added does not mean that it would have been unconstitutional without an amendment because of “precedent”.
I know there are some scholars who believe that the US Constitution enshrined the right to slavery so that Congress could not have voted that slavery was illegal without an amendment first. But that is ridiculous. The Amendment merely emphasized that right that could have simply been voted on.
The far right has used that same argument to insist that Americans have some Constitutional right to own weapons of mass destruction and only an Amendment passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures can change that.
LikeLike
And look at that, your expertise in constitutional tax law is already surpassing mine!
I’m just trying to tell you that there is a serious constitutional hurdle in the way of a wealth tax, namely, an on-point Supreme Court decision. Do with that information what you will.
LikeLike
^^^Your follow-up argument is correct, which simply reinforces the view that the Supreme Court needs to be expanded.
FDR threatened to expand the Court and while he was thwarted, the Supreme Court got scared enough that they stopped doing the bidding of the right wing oligarchs and started recognizing democracy.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I have never held myself out to be an expert.
What I am is someone who is skeptical of arguments like yours which consist entirely of “Supreme Court says it, so it is precedent”.
We’ve all heard that circular reasoning with regard to gun control laws, too, And we all heard that with regard to Citizens United.
But somehow that argument is not espoused by those very same people when it comes to the right to an abortion.
Is Roe v. Wade decided law? Is Citizens’ United? Is the Affordable Care Act? Is Medicare?
As I said above (in a comment held up), the Supreme Court needs to be expanded if it finds that all progressive legislation is “unconstitutional”.
LikeLike
FLERP! says: “The Supreme Court has held the estate tax is constitutional. You can find the opinion and subsequent case law.”
I took your challenge and found this!
Thursday, April 18, 2019
“The Estate Tax Is Unconstitutional”
By Paul Caron
Henry Lowenstein (Coastal Carolina University) & Kathryn Kisska-Schulze (Clemson University College of Business), A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 123 (2018):
“During the 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton vowed to raise the estate (death) tax to 65%, while Donald Trump pledged to abolish it as part of his overall tax reform proposal. An interesting question resonates as to whether the tax is even constitutional. This paper takes a fresh look at the Estate Tax, appropriate in an era of a U.S. Supreme Court consisting of a majority of adherents to a more “strict constructionist” view of constitutional interpretation. Although historically regarded by the U.S. Supreme Court as being a constitutional excise tax, it can be theorized that the estate tax is an unconstitutional overreach of taxing power by the Federal government and constitutes a “taking” of private property banned by the 5th Amendment. This article directly confronts the constitutionality of the federal Estate Tax from a purely bedrock perspective. To meet this objective, were review the enumerated powers of Federal taxation as allowed by the U.S. Constitution; dissect the scope of the estate tax, to include an analysis of the judicial and legislative history supporting its constitutionality; theorize that the tax does not have a constitutional basis legitimizing its inclusion in the Federal tax code; and conclude that the estate tax violates the U.S. Constitution and should therefore be repealed.
Notwithstanding historical challenges that the Estate Tax was neither an excise nor impost as prescribed in our nation’s Constitution, the Supreme Court adhered to its determination that the Estate Tax is an “excise” in New York Trust Company v. Eisner, without additional detailed analysis. Such dogma has since been maintained through the decades, without further re-examination by the Court. However, it is clear from a historical perspective that the 1921 Supreme Court failed to follow a “strict constructionist” constitutional analysis in making its decision.”
In short, if the right wing Supreme Court follows this clear right wing reasoning, they will declare the estate tax unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is more radical than ever having been packed with 3 Justices because Mitch McConnell was willing to use the law to pack the courts with right wing justices.
Increasing the number of justices will UNpack the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
Maybe think of it as, “the constitutionality of an estate tax is highly debatable.”
LikeLike
Oops, meant to say “wealth tax” there.
LikeLike
FLERP! says: “Maybe think of it as, “the constitutionality of an estate tax [or wealth tax] is highly debatable.”
We agree!
And if your point was that the current Supreme Court – packed with justices handpicked by the Federalist Society and the other right wing judicial organizations that Linda often mentions – is likely to declare the wealth tax to be unconstitutional, then we also agree.
We have a Supreme Court that is likely to declare the ACA unconstitutional and any attempt at gun control unconstitutional, so I don’t have high hopes for them not to strike down a wealth tax. The right wingers always find a legal reason to declare laws that they don’t like as unconstitutional and will find legal reasons to declare repressive anti democratic laws to be perfectly fine.
If the Republicans had not packed the Supreme Court with right wing sycophants, it would have been a more trustworthy arbiter of what is constitutional or not. And none of us would know if there would be an interesting decision for or against the wealth tax that was based on reasonable argument.
As it stands now, the far right doesn’t need to make a good constitutional argument because they know that 5 Supreme Court Justices will almost always vote the way they want and write poorly reasons opinions to justify it.
But I’ve enjoyed reading your responses, so thank you for not being snarky and taking the time to argue your opinions. No doubt you have better things to do with your time, but I appreciate it.
LikeLike
OTOH, there’s probably nothing constitutionally debatable about taxing the hell out of $400k+ incomes via adding a tax bracket or two. And closing loopholes on tax havens.
LikeLike
Bethree5,
Taxing the hell out of income of $400,000 or more will not have any measurable impact on billionaire’s wealth. They do not have a that high a net worth because they earned high incomes.
LikeLike
Biden’s plan would raise taxes on income over $1 million, not $400,000.
LikeLike
I do not think it possible to tax the billionaires out of the picture. What we could do is to use the fact of their accidental wealth against them. Their wealth is an accident of timing. They came to it because of computers and the effect of off-shore industrial developments. What we need to do is to use the extreme wealth of these people against them in politics so they do not continue out-sized influence. I suspect attempt to tax them would be futile; they would flee like French Nobility in the face of the revolution. So we should shame them publicly.
LikeLike
Island Retreats
When public turns agin’
The billionaires will skip
The question is just “when”
Instead of being “if”
To islands they will go
And some will go to space
Cuz when the public blow
They’ll have to leave the place
LikeLike
Elon and Jeff are already desperate to leave the planet.
If only their rockets (and cars) didn’t keep exploding.
LikeLike
Musk just got a multi billion dollar contract from NASA to put astronauts back on the moon (supposedly by 2024) but unless his rockets quit exploding, he ain’t going to get many volunteers.
LikeLike
Only astronuts
LikeLike
Billionaires are going to need another planet to escape to if they’re not careful, and I’m not talking about climate change.
LikeLike
If we could only make them think they are important and then do whatever we want.
LikeLike
There was a time in the not so distant past when the top marginal tax rate was 91%. The billionaires can well afford to pay more in taxes and still be filthy rich.
LikeLike
Joe Jersey,
That was the top marginal rate on earned income. No one becomes a billionaire because they are paid a high salary. Jeff Bazos has been paid a bit over $81,000 a year in salary for decades.
LikeLike
That’s funny, then why do the rich fight tooth and nail to lower the top marginal tax rate to almost nothing if it is of so little importance to billionaires? Jeff Bezos is earning the same salary as a 30+ veteran year teacher in NJ. How quaint.
LikeLike
So, the W-2 form makes sure your salary is taxed. Now, let’s tax the rest of the billionaires’ incomes, not just their salaries. Tax dividends, for one thing, and get the money from Wall Street to Main Street. Easy. We could make the investor class fill out a W-2,000,000,000 form.
LikeLike
I’m no economist but we get taxed on our taxable income which includes salary, interest income, stock dividends, etc. So what if his salary is just $81,000, what is his total compensation package. When I was working, I didn’t just pay income taxes on my salary alone but also all the other things I mentioned above.
LikeLike
Joe Jersey,
It is certainly true that if Amazon paid a dividend to their shareholders Jeff Bazos would owe taxes on that dividend. Amazon does not, however, pay a dividend. Tax dividend payments all you wish and it will not have the slightest impact on his wealth.
Once again, no one becomes a billionaire from earning a high level of income.
LikeLike
TE, your defense of the billionaires is amusing.
LikeLike
Billionaires are able to hide most of their incomes from the IRS, and they keep buying legislation to make it easier. Heck, they get a huge tax break for funneling money into a politically active foundation or for setting up a charter school! And I’m no economist either, thank the Lord, but I read.
LikeLike
From CNN, 4-11-19: Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the world, has made the same $81,840 salary for two decades.
Fast facts about Jeff Bezos
He has never taken a stock award. Bezos doesn’t need it – he already owns 16% of Amazon, a stake worth more than $100 billion.
But Amazon (AMZN) pays a ton of money every year to keep its CEO safe. Bezos has received $1.6 million in security-related services and business travel each year since 2010 and at least $1.1 million since 2003 when the company first started reporting security expenses as part of Bezos’ total compensation. end quote
Jack up the top marginal tax rate, there are plenty of folks whose salary/compensation is $500,000 and above.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist,
If Jeff Bezos has no “income”, except $81,000, how does he pay for the things he buys?
Also, this gets back to the capital gains tax and the problems with certain types of money that only very rich people earn — the money that allows them to buy their expensive toys and luxuries every year — being treated differently than the income that regular folks make.
And with regards to Biden directing taxes toward the $1 million plus earners and not the $500,000+ earners…
The problem is the huge concentration of wealth in the very, very rich. The people in the $500,000 – $1 million income range aren’t much different than those in the $300,000 – $499,999 income range. They aren’t the problem — the enormous wealth concentrated in those who make $1 million plus (and really $1 billion plus) are the problem.
No one needs more than $1 billion. And those people with $20 and $40 billion end up spending a fraction of it to impose their will on others because they have run out of things they can buy except for imposing their will on other people who need their so-called “generosity”.
Jeff Bezos’ wife is very unusual in that she gave away her money to existing organizations doing good work with no strings attached except to continue to do the work they were doing before they knew that they would end up with a huge donation. And even then, she could give away billions and still have more money than she could ever spend on herself and her family.
I also believe that the US Congress should pass a law that anyone who has a building or anything else named for them or someone of their choosing after making that donation should be required to pay full taxes on that donation since it is no longer a charitable donation. And foundations with names of people are no longer considered charitable until they change their name. If Gates Foundation wants to give money in the future and have it be charitable, the name must be changed to a generic one.
LikeLike
^^And to continue my comment above (held up in moderation)…
Anyone who argues that if charitable donors aren’t allowed to name foundations after themselves they wouldn’t start them, or who argues that charities or schools couldn’t raise money without rewarding their biggest donors by naming things after them is supporting my view that those contributions should not be tax-deductible.
Real charity is giving to do good, not giving only if one gets a PR (or other) benefit in return.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe Jersey,
Lets see what impact we could have on Jeff Bazos if we taxed his income at an average rate of 100%. His listed compensation is a bit over $1.6 million, so for every dollar of compensation lets make him pay a dollar in tax. In 100 years you will have reduced is wealth from $191.7 billion to $191.6 billion. I had thought folks where would be more ambitious.
Income taxes impact high salaried professionals like physicians and lawyers, not billionaires. There are two ways that you could have a serious impact on his wealth: confiscate his shares in the company that he founded or persuade people to stop using any of the services Amazon owns. I think that confiscating assets when a company becomes very successful will be a good way to reduce the number of successful companies formed in the United States. The better plan would be to get folks to stop using any of the products Amazon offers. No need for government intervention, people power would reduce his wealth to next to nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TE,
As usual, you are being disingenuous. As you well know, we will not free ourselves of the domination of billionaires unless we tax their wealth. I don’t know how to write a tax code, but I’d start with Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposals. Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, just defeated a proposal to allow his workers in Bessemer, Ala., to unionize. If he cared about social justice, he would encourage them to join a union.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Ravitch,
Not disingenuous at all. I do admit it would require personal sacrifice, but I have no doubt that the posters here would be very willing to endure a less comfortable future for the greater good.
LikeLike
No one who posts here has an income of more than $1 million a year, nor are they listed on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
LikeLike
Does TE teach economics?? Apparently TE believes that Income = Compensation.
TE maybe you don’t understand that people have income from sources other than their salaries! Did you know that?
Compensation Tax? Is that what you believe federal taxes are?
Jeff Bezos buys lots of thing that people who earn $81,000/year or even $2 million a year can’t afford. He pays for those things with income that should be taxed at a higher rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Corporate tax revenue relative to the size of the economy is now less than one-quarter what it was in 1967, according to the CBO. The recent proliferation of billionaires is only partly due to my usual scapegoat, the deregulation of the financial sector. This article breaks down the source of riches for the wealthiest (the Forbes 400, net worth $3trillion): https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2019/10/06/how-americas-rich-get-so-rich/?sh=4ce89a7a2f56 Finance & investment accounts for 23.5% of them. The other 76.5% make (& keep most of) their $ through producing a tangible product.
The issue here is more the failure of national regulation to adapt to the global marketplace in general, particularly the rise of the information industry (accounts for 17.25% of Forbes 400). This article shows how easily producers have outwitted Obama/ Trump efforts to tax more of their profits, & difficulties anticipated in Biden proposals: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/04/20/corporate-tax-loopholes-biden/ It’s not just a US problem; the OECD has been hosting talks with 137 countries seeking a global minimum tax levy.
Warren’s wealth tax is certainly the simplest way to go, as it cuts straight through tax code complexities and sidesteps the global issues. But as pointed out by commenters, it would meet constitutional challenges whose outcome is not at all assured.
LikeLike
In other words, step one is to expand the Supreme Court : )
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nancy Pelosi wants to wait until after the 2022 elections when it’s possible the Dems will lose Reps or Senators, thereby undercutting the likelihood of the expansion.
LikeLike