Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Taxing Wealth for the Common Good
When members of Congress proposed paying for expanded health care with a tax surcharge on America's wealthiest citizens, the attack was swift but predictable. Taxing the top was labeled "class war," an attack on the successful, and bad for business and the economy. So it was refreshing when the high-income members of a new network -Wealth for the Common Good (WFCG) -stepped forward to essentially say "Sure, raise our taxes." Why? Because it's fair, and because they can afford it.
"In hard times it is important for Americans to come together and unite over the idea that medical care ought to be a basic right of citizenship," said former investment banker Eric Schoenberg, a member of the organization. "It's only fair for those of us who have benefited the most from this system to contribute the most."
Over the last 30 years, our economic policies have slowly changed to disproportionately benefit our nation's top-earners and concentrate wealth into the hands of a few. The members of Wealth for the Common Good, a network of business leaders, entrepreneurs, professionals, and other high-income individuals, are among those who have benefited from such policies. Their goal now is to help shape policy so that it benefits people of all income levels
Wealth for the Common Good went public on July 29th with their public call to immediately reverse the Bush-era tax cuts on households with incomes over $235,000. Thousands signed the petition, including hundreds of high-income individuals who would personally pay the tax.
Many members directly support the health care surcharge, but their objectives go beyond that proposal. The broader debate over taxes will be heated in the coming years as we see the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and face the consequences of an unprecedented national deficit. Wealth for the Common Good, advocating for a rebalanced tax code, wants to be part of the debate.
Changing the conversation is key to this effort. Arul Menezes, a principal architect at Microsoft and member of the initiative, acknowledged that fact when describing his own financial success during a Wealth for the Common Good press conference.
"I could choose to tell my story this way: ‘I arrived [in the United States from India] with $250 in my pocket, and got where I am based entirely on my hard work.' This is true, but it's not the whole truth." Menezes then gave "a more honest reckoning" that took into account his publicly funded education, government investments in the technology industry, and all of the benefits he gains from "schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, parks, and civic amenities that were built and paid for by previous generations...[that] had the collective will to invest in their future and the future of their children."
In the coming months, Wealth for the Common Good is leading focus groups on a number of proposals that would raise revenue, such as eliminating tax preferences for capital gains and subsidies for excessive executive compensation. Later this fall, it will amplify the voices of small business owners that want to close overseas corporate tax havens.
"Our current tax structure is regressive and unfairly burdens those in the middle and bottom tiers," said Todd B. Achilles, a WFCG member and a leading executive in the telecom industry. "Ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to be successful and pursue their dreams means ensuring that each and every American contributes appropriately to the nation's well-being."
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllStart by eliminating corporation-as-person regulations with regard to everything but taxes. Start actually taxing corporations again and close loopholes allowing US corporations to avoid US taxes off-shore. No pay, no play.
If the rich don't want to pay taxes, the government should provide one service for them: euthanasia.
Yea! Death Panels do have a place in society!
I can't help but think this is being prompted as much by nervousness as ethics. It sounds like these people are among the sharpest knives in the drawer, and are aware that things are now so unbalanced that the next sound they hear might be tumbrils.
One of the things the Libertarians or persons who support a Low tax on the Wealthy like to claim is that this a matter of Property rights and that the "wealth" is "Theirs" by rights and that taxation on that wealth is a from of theft, stealing the hard earned money from those who earned it to give to those that did not.
They speak of the dangers of Socialism and of how America was built on the concepts of Liberty, freedom and the rights to property.
When one reads editorials from The Economist or the Wall Street Journal and other such papers commenting on Foreign countries where "Land Reform" takes place, they speak to how WRONG this is economically. If a Chavez or an Arbenz, an Aristide or a Castro speak of "redistribution of wealth" and "land reform" it a great evil, a cancer on the world.
These people are UNAWARE or fail to acknowlegde their own History. They like to pretend That Americans built their wealth through "hard work" . We are somehow to believe that all of these Immigrants that came from Europe were "lazy" while in Europe, but then became hard workers when they landed on the shores of the New World.
The FACT is this.
Land redistribution happened on a massive scale. The US and British courts RECOGNIZED the legal title the Aboroginal populations had to the lands and siezed it from them by force.
With the lands not seized by force and surrendered via treaty they IGNORED those same treaties. These lands were rich with Timber and Minerals and rich soil for farms.It was not CAPITALISM that created all of these resources and land.
They then "redistributed" the land from "The Rightful owners" to the millions of white immigrants who flooded into the country either at gunpoint or via treaties which were then ignored.
The trail of tears was "land Redistribution". The Sooners invading the "Indian Territories" was land redistribution. All of this was the Government transferring wealth and property from one group of peoples to another. The papers claimed at the time the RIGHT to do this because no group of people deserved ALL that land.
Most of the Native tribes believed there was enough land to share with others and entered into those treaties in good faith.
I fail to understand why the concept of SHARING the wealth and distributing it equitably is so hard for so many.
GwNorth, that was a most needed reminder in this whole discussion about wealth and "wealth creation". But I'm not at all sure it will reach the brains of those who think they somehow "created" all this wealth. In fact, I'm less and less hopeful that any kind of reasoning will work with such people. Or, maybe they know at a deeper level and are fearful of this mostly unearned and undeserved wealth taken away from them, and hence all the agitation over an impending socialism. What's needed is for the rest to get educated, understand the issues and come together. After all, when other countries have somewhat more equitable systems, it's because a majority of the people understand what works in the long run.
From a psychological perspective though, it's hard for settlers in a new land to think about fairness. Sure, the innate humanity and a sense of justice does wake up in some people. But to have a humane and just system, these would have to be present in a sufficiently large number of people. Even in settler countries where people imagine they have a more equitable system, it would work ONLY so long as there are enough resources to go around, or when the population is not too large, so that, out of a desire for some kind of social stability, the 'system' would allow the basic needs to be met for all. But look closely, you'll find great inequality there too. And when the crunch comes, the basic human nature will show its face and fairness will take a back seat. Naomi Klein draws attention, from time to time, to the policies of what she calls "settler states" - such as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand AND Israel. And I too wonder if there could be a difference in the overall psyche of such nations and those where people have lived for much longer. Most of what you mentioned about history has taken place in all these countries. Where things look somewhat better, it's my theory that they do so because of a large enough resource base for a small population. No matter what the underlying factors are - if more and more people get a sense of what's fair and can look at history objectively, that's a hopeful sign for the future.
Question - Have the members of Wealth for the Common Good published their tax returns post the Bush tax cuts? Do you suppose they calculated their taxes and then say doubled their payment?
IRS data shows that the top 5% earners pay 40+% of all income taxes, that's alot! Most of the lower income earners pay more in SS & M'c taxes then income if at all.
The real need is for more REVENUE not for higher rates. Higher rates don't necessarily mean more revenue. High earners didn't get that way by accident. Higher rates can cause H'es work less/earn less, move to non tax investments, etc.
Keep in mind that the great majority of elected people are wealthy and not likely to really penalize themselves.
Tax revenue comes form economic activity/commerce not thin air. A flat tax of say 25% that exempts a typical family of four's first 50K gross income might get more revenue then reverting to the pre JFK rates.
But looking at total tax burden at different wealth and income levels looks much different than comparing the narrowly-drawn figure of "federal income tax".
For one thing, "adjustments" to gross income are different for the very wealthy than for wage earners. Armies of lobbyists and tax lawyers work to promote the interests of the wealthy, and their TAXABLE income is very different from ACTUAL income.
For another thing, the 7.65% Social Security and Medicare tax rate applies only to the first $100,000 of income, so the poor pay astronomically higher rates than the rich, who pay zero on every dollar over $100,000.
For a third thing, sales taxes are overwhelmingly paid by poor and working class people, who spend the majority of their earnings on day-to-day purchases. The rich, who funnel much of their takings into investments, again pay vastly lower percentages of their income into sales taxes than the poor.
So the narrow figure of "federal income taxes" is a highly misleading measure of total tax burden at different income levels.
Finally, the main point is not actually about "higher revenue" versus "higher rates". Nor is the point to seek equity or balance in the percentage burden on income or wealth at different levels. The point is to seek a stable healthy society. Extreme wealth and income inequality is closely correlated with numerous measures of social instability.
You might note the blog post referencing the updated report on income equality. The top one-hundredth of one percent - one income in ten thousand, the highest 14,000 incomes in the USA - took 6% of total income in 2007. This gross distortion - the most distorted in US history since figures became available with the institution of the income tax in 1913 - does not bode well for the future of our country.
In fact this gross income distortion is not disconnected from the criminal financial practices that have led to the shuddering collapse of our entire financial system, totteringly propped up one final time by the desperate flinging of 12 or 24 Trillion non-existent dollars (but who's really counting?) into the black hole. Get ready for the REAL crash.
Feel free to cling to your flat tax fantasies of wealth and revenue. We need to jail the gamblers and criminals, many of whom reside comfortably in your upper tax brackets.
What a refreshing article! It's about time someone (the members of the Wealth group) has some perspective and honesty. Anyone who thinks they've gained their wealth without relying on others is deluded. The next step needs to be a re-branding of the notion of paying taxes. If we want to be a WE society then paying taxes means helping others out. If we want to be a ME society then taxes are bad and to be avoided at all costs.
The issue of the distribution of money needs to be reframed. Money is supposed to circulate; that's why it's called currency, because it flows from one place to another. Just as in tight times when goods are scarce, those who hoard money and bury it in overseas accounts and prevent its natural circulation and should be considered criminals. Hoarding goods is a crime; hoarding money should also be a crime.
Finance has become like mining - the new extractive industry. The ordinary folk are seen as raw material to be exploited for their labour and for their few grimy hard-won pennies.
Completely aside from the fact that those who derive the most benefit from a society should make the greatest contribution to it. Perhaps the amount of contribution (taxes) should be considereed as a factor of how great the disparity is. If you are making 400 times the average income in the country, then you should contribute 400 times the taxes. These wealthy types never seem to acknowledge all the freebies they enjoy at the expense of the grunts.
Taxing wealth (especially non-residential real estate and corporate profits) for the common good is a right principle, but so is the idea that the wealthy owe more because they have used up more of the commons we all support, use, and depend upon.
Poet
Absolutely. We don't just need an income tax (properly structured), we also need a wealth tax.
correct -- the wealthy do not "create wealth" out of a VACUUM .
in fact the only thing they EVER really create as "wealth" is MONEY -- which itself is nothing but a form of transaction - but the resulting ECONOMY which is the one the produces wealth through the common participation of individuals, big or small, is what creates a "national economy" and eventually the global economy .
the wealthy are only wealthy BECAUSE of the society that allows them to BE so.
they are wealthy not because they are more special or "innovative" or more "useful in the market" - but because the system of a societies allow values to be accumulated towards what BECOMES a "wealthy" person.
it is like the ability to bottle water.
water belongs to no one in particular. it is common heritage of all living beings.
the person who stands at the right place - for any reason - and bottles it and charges the "market" for the "value" of water
becomes "wealthy" through the CHARGING and NOT because he OWNS water or created water .
were he EVEN to create a magical formula based on water - he STILL has been using COMMON property despite his cleverness and individual abilities .
These folks might not be as altruistic as they appear.
For the majority of the 20th century the top marginal tax rate was above 50%.
For a great deal of time it was between 70-90%. (The greatest middle class the world has ever known was built during this time.)
Supporting the elimination of the Bush tax cuts (and returning to a top rate of 38%) may simply be a preemptive strike against the rates returning MUCH higher.
I'm sure these people shudder at the idea of a 70% rate.
Cygnus: I see your point about the "altruism" of Wealth for the Common Good people, and I think a conundrum is posed thereby for progressives. On the one hand, we ought to welcome with open arms any movements toward progressive taxation to guarantee that the wealthy bear more of the burden for maintaining the "common good." But, as you say, like the pharmaceutical companies that agreed (sort of) to an $80 billion cut in drug costs in exchange for much greater savings if the government forewent negotiating drug prices on medical insurance coverage, so these philanthropic gestures toward supporting wealth distribution might be devices to maintain the very world economic system that allows them to gain the incredible wealth that they are now so "altruistically" eager to share. A person like Bill Gates or a corporation like Microsoft may choose as an instrument of "re-distribution" of their wealth something like the Millennium Challenge Accounts instituted by President Bush to provide "development" grants to counter world poverty, in a way that may encourage the very neo-liberal world economy that has generated the fabulous wealth of a Gates or a Buffett. So yeah, I'd say, forget the "altruism" of the motive and take the money (and say thank you), but insist that the funds be distributed to the poor in a way that does not simply maintain and extend their poverty. Under those conditions, would the wealthy "Common Gooders" be so willing to continue their good deeds? Let's "hope."
Now this is a most refreshing article. It gives me hope!
It shows that even the wealthy, who are no longer on bended knee to the worship of money, can experience a spiritual transformation for the common good. This is humanity at its best. This is what an emerging higher global consciousness for a more just, sustainable and compassionate world is all about. Thank you Chuck Collins and "Wealth for the Common Good"
"Wealth for the Common Good with their public call to immediately reverse the Bush-era tax cuts on households with incomes over $235,000."
Who do these assholes think they are kidding?
High Income does not signify Wealth
The truly wealthy can have ZERO income.
Warren Buffett's (the 2nd or third richest man in the world) income from salary is around $100,000.
So PULHLEEZE stop this dishonest crap about willing to pay your fair share or misdirecting people with the utter nonsense that people earning $200,000 a year are the ones buying gulf streams and private islands.
The truly wealthy are not stupid and you have no rightful claim to redistribute their wealth. However listening to and buying into this bilge just makes you a chump while they scapegoat others.
Common-dweebs: Absolutely vital point about income versus wealth as the basis for taxation. Even as brilliant an economic analyst as I (?) overlooked that point: "let's have the government tax those high income people who haven't yet obtained our fabulous wealth (and may not if they're taxed high enough); we'll do our philanthropic thing and voluntarily give away part of our wealth (so long as it doesn't interfere with the way our class of people accumulates wealth)." Sweet! Oh Yes! we can (stay wealthy and contribute to the Common Good.
Ahh, Dweeebs, always so predictable, aren't we? You're required reading as the type example of a dupe who loudly supports the system that is killing him. Too bad your system is killing me, too, you ass.
One day, I won't need my earned income and my taxes will drop to nil.
Since I was taxed every which way possible while I was working(to break the fetters of the social safety net ), I'll feel absolutely giddy without remorse.
As I thought - everything in all creation is all about you, isn't it? Wow, how you have sacrificed! At least you actually paid taxes, not like the corporatocracy you shill for.
AWW sounds like somebody's envious that I have a plan.
Don't blame me just because you are apparently too stupid to keep the system from killing you.
or was that just mock outrage.
BTW: Get back to work, your tax dollars are my income.
ROTFLMAO
Keep on laughing, rolling boy - maybe it'll make you sane.
You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual - I'm retired from US government service, a veritable leech on society - you are already paying for my meals, my toys, and my vacations. So your dollars are actually my income. No one here is envious of your so-called "plan" - work your butt off for the corporate masters so they can crap you out when your usefulness, such as it probably was, runs out. Good boy.
Here's what WFTCG says:
"In the coming months, Wealth for the Common Good is leading focus groups on a number of proposals that would raise revenue, such as eliminating tax preferences for capital gains and subsidies for excessive executive compensation. Later this fall, it will amplify the voices of small business owners that want to close overseas corporate tax havens."
Hmmm... "eliminating tax preferences for capital gains..." So WFTCG is talking about taxing not only Warren Buffett's SALARY, you Common Dweeb! They are talking about taxing his INVESTMENT INCOME as well, at the same rate as his salary.
Not at all surprised that with your foaming-at-the-mouth defense of WEALTH you might miss the plain truth about the platform this group is promoting.
"OMG! WEALTH! I THINK I'M GONNA..."
You don't look very pretty, Common Dweeb. Plus you keep putting words in people's mouths, making straw-man arguments, and attacking the fantasies in your head, rather than the actual people you imagine you are responding to. Rave on!
PS: Oh BTW, look at this: "Along with Bill Gates Sr., he co-authored Wealth and Our Commonwealth, a case for taxing inherited fortunes." So the author is writing about how much he LOVES THE ESTATE TAX! A direct tax on - Gasp! - WEALTH!
You really don't read very carefully do you?
You don't think much do you?
It's all a bait and switch routine designed to distract you long enough to target higher income workers who cannot escape the long arm of US taxation like they can.
Do you really think Gates or the kennedy family will let themselves be taxed at a rate higher than what they themselves choose.
Gates and Buffett already plan to give it away, so no estate tax needed.
I haven't seen edward kennedy lamenting the family fortune or jumping at the chance to give it all away.
i'm really sorry your life is so pointless. i wish you well on your way.
These are a few wonderful people who are going to be pummeled by Faux and the other media.
Which people are you exactly referring to?
I thought that the Faux and other M$M viewers are already getting pummeled by Faux in terms of getting brainwashed and addicted to them.
Keep in mind that a wealth tax may work once but the wealth may not be there in succeeding years to tax again
Are we looking for an ongoing revenue stream for healthcare, social security etc or are we being punitive out of spite or jealously?
Keep in mind that everybody thinks the other person is 'wealthy'. The great majority of people would be surprised to realize the number of people who think they are 'wealthy'!
People gather wealth thru providing something that a great number of people must have value. Nobody creates wealth by their existence alone. The higher the income the greater value people assign that good/service. Now whether an attorney is worth $250+/-/hr v auto worker at $25/hr is whole other can of worms.
The current health ins/care debate and whatever reform is passed and signed will cause the care provider people to react as it suits their personal situation.
MD's in particular may look at their current set up and opt out w/retirement, opt out by refusing other than cash clients, opt out by switching careers. Opt out by not attending medical school anyway. Where do the necessary med professionals come from if 'reform' takes the form of controlling income?
You must consider that now as before, people make changes as their enlightened self interest. Such is freedom/liberty. We must be careful what we wish for.
I'm not in favor of a wealth tax or incresing income taxes.
However this group is just playing these chumps for the desperate fools that they are, just like oh-bwah-ma played them pre-election.
you are basing that on an assumption that the US system of wealth creation IS itself HEALTHY ....and that taxing wealth will lead to such things as you say - enough to cause a collapse of the USA as a nation and economy.
but taht is wrong.
the FINNS have a socialist system . that is well-known - has THEIR system collapsed? all these generations now?
what is happening to the USA wealth? its based on a 14 trillion DEBT - based alone on the actual worth of a year. in reality it is indebted to at least 50 TRILLION dollars - at least four times its REAL value.
that amounts to every single american IN DEBT whether they like it or not or know - to at least 8,000 dollars per year EACH.
and you are talking about 'wealth"? americans don't OWN anything . they are OWNED. and are merely at the tolerance and mercy of other aggregate economies for that continuation...and would more EASILY COLLAPSE the USA if those creditors removed their "trust" in america than ANY "taxing of wealth".
the richest man in Finland - the one that started NOKIA company was asked in an interview (with his wife , in their simple house) -
"DO YOU support the high, progressive system of taxation in your country?"
his answer was unequivocal:
"OF COURSE -- i am GLAD to pay my share in taxes because this is the way we give back to our society which ahs PROVIDED US with the opportunity to be as wealth and successful as we are....we don't need more...it is our DUTY to return to society the benefits it has given us....the US system is simply alien to us".
Tax the wealthy - that's where all our money went.
The max US fed tax on capital gains is 15%. The wealthy can put most of their income in this bracket. The min tax on wages is FICA, which is 12.35+% of compensation (counting the part called employer contribution. Adding any income tax and other payroll taxes, very few real working people have a lower marginal tax rate than the very wealthy.
The 15% capital gains tax is a travesty that is strangling the middle class and increasing the wealth gap for the few who designed, installed, rigged and propped up the Wall Street game. Why in any rational society this additional income is not subject to the same rate as all other income is beyond me. Add this to corporate personhood, tax havens, and tax loopholes and you have a very tidy way for the corporate baronage to continue robbing the country.
Reagan cut taxes, and the debt tripled. Bush cut taxes, and the debt doubled. The debt doesn't go away. Reagan's grandchildren must now pay for Reagan's tax cuts, PLUS an interest expense on them that totals $300 billion a year. The debt Reagan/Bush handed off to Obama totalled $11 trillion. If so-called 'conservatives' can't cut taxes without ALSO cutting spending (which would require oh, I don't know, ETHICS), then its appropriate to raise taxes now on those who primarily gained through tax cuts in the first place.
Since Reagan cut taxes, the wealthiest 1% of income earners have quadrupled their income, while the poorest 90% of income earners have seen their share of the nations income DROP by 20%. Since Reagan cut taxes, the wealthiest 1% of the country have gone from OWNING 20% of the country, to OWNING 40% of it. THAT'S ALMOST HALF of the United States owned by 1% of her citizens. The Economist Magazine reported that 75% of the wealth generated by the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1% of America. NOT MOTHER JONES, THE ECONOMIST!
It should be obvious WHO has benefitted by tax cuts over the last 30 years that have bankrupted younger generations of Americans while they were still in the womb. I'm surprised Republicans can sleep at night.
Reagan was truly the anti-Jefferson, a B-movie actor who decided once he got his it was okay to screw everyone else. A man with no compassion, no intellect, and no morals - The God of the Right.
good comment
Why not eliminate all taxes and simply cap personal net worth?
In moneyless nature, no other organism is able to concentrate its wealth and power to our limitlessly unnatural extent.
Concentrating money-power got us in this interminable mess. Until we control it, things can only get worse.
i totally support a wealth cap, and a salary cap as well.
Why does anyone think it makes sense to "earn" hundreds of times or "own" millions of times as much as others? What is the motivation behind this truly insatiable greed? Especially given the clear horrific consequences?
Nice to see some of the uber-wealthy paying attention to reality, at least to some degree...
Karita Hummer
This gives hope, indeed.
Karita Hummer
Interesting article, especially because I have been pondering lately the possibility of a moneyless society. How would it work? Guess I'll have to google that topic, or study primitive societies and how they were structured. Maybe going backward is the new forward. Are there any Star Trek Next Generation fans out there? I remember an episode where a pod from outer space is brought on board. A Texas oil millionaire is inside. He had so much money he wanted to go into space and the Enterprise had just found him. He was from the 1970's era big Texas oil tycoons. As Piccard took him on a tour of the ship he asked Piccard how much money he made being the commander of the ship. Piccard casually said, "I make enough to be comfortable." Mr. Tycoon told him he could be making millions of dollars. Then he asked why he would work on the Enterprise and be captain if he didn't make boatloads of money. Piccard, with a confused look, said "For the knowledge of course!" I loved Piccard before, but I really loved him when he said this. Yes --- Why does our goal always have to be money? Think about this concept. No money. Hummmmmmmmm. Be a doctor because you want to cure/help people. Be a IT person because you love it and want to contribute to society. Be a construction worker because you like to do it. And live a comfortable life. Maybe living a comfortable life will be our next human right.
Chief among the concentraters of wealth and power is the CORPORATION.
Specifically, State-Corporatism.
The corporation floats the wrong people to the top of the system for the wrong reasons. It is very hopeful to see these wealthy people take the long sustainable view, but they are in the minority and have a big job ahead of them if they are to change the momentum of the race to the bottom and feudal chaos.
Corporate charters must be drastically changed to protect the commons, the environment and humanity. And soon.
15% cap gains strangles the middle class - how so? 15% applies to everyone who owns anything that has gained in value. Most of the middle class owns things of future greater value.
A money less society uses barter to determine value. What do you have to trade for your daily bread that the baker, butcher, candlestick maker would value?
Back to homespun cloth, animal hide (leather) sandals, animal meat to eat (PETA would freak).
Money is just a medium of exchange.
When talking about salary and wealth caps you probably envision salaries and wealth greater than your own. Beware that they will cap your's too.
If you were around at he time, one of Nixon's (tricky Dick) superbly stupid ideas was "Wage and Price Controls" that was supposed to freeze everything in place as of 0100 hrs on a day certain and inflation would be stopped. What a train wreck!