5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
'Keep Digging': Progressives Welcome Jeff Bezos' Entrance Into Tax-the-Billionaires Debate
"The political danger in Bezos’ argument" to eliminate income taxes for the bottom 50% of American earners, said one op-ed, "is that it lets billionaires sound generous while leaving the structure of wealth largely untouched."
May 22, 2026
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' decision to wade into the tax the rich debate raised eyebrows Thursday, as progressives who have long demanded a wealth tax for billionaires said they'd be happy to include him in the ongoing discussion about how the US tax system can be reformed to benefit working people.
In an interview with CNBC this week, the world's fourth-richest person claimed that doubling his taxes would do nothing to help working people, and attempted to shift the conversation on the tax system to a proposal that the bottom 50% of earners in the US should pay nothing in income taxes.
“You could double the taxes I pay, and it’s not going to help that teacher in Queens," said Bezos. "I promise you.”
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani replied, "I know a few teachers in Queens who would beg to differ." The democratic socialist has been relentlessly focused on making the city more affordable for working people and last month announced his plan to tax second homes valued at more than $5 million.
Critics of Bezos were quick to point out this week that the 1% effective tax rate the billionaire paid between 2014-18 was due to his avoidance of the income tax that working Americans have to pay, with the executive "offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions."
Progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have argued that billionaires including Bezos pay a lower effective tax rate than working people because a vast amount of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and other investments instead of income from labor.
Bezos has also not faced a tax on his immense overall wealth of $275.4 billion, which US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressives have long called for, saying that taxing a relatively tiny amount of the assets held by billionaires like Bezos, Tesla founder and President Donald Trump megadonor Elon Musk, and other tech and business executives could fund essential services for the rest of society—including many that have contributed to the affordability crisis for working families.
"Let's have that debate" regarding reforms to the US tax system, Sanders said Thursday evening, addressing Bezos on Musk's platform X.
The senator has proposed a 5% annual wealth tax, which he said would leave Bezos still sitting on $269 billion in total wealth, while providing enough revenue to fund guaranteed universal childcare, an expansion of Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care for senior citizens, a nationwide starting salary of $60,000 per year for public school teachers, and more.
In his interview with CNBC and on social media this week, Bezos repeatedly attempted to shift attention away from his taxes and onto the income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of earners, claiming that the "top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes."
"The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world," he asserted. "We can make it even more progressive by zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. It’s a small amount of the total tax revenue but very meaningful to people in this group."
Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman, who has also called for a wealth tax and last month co-authored a Guardian op-ed with Mamdani explaining how the regressive tax system of the US has helped ensure the top 0.0001% of the global population holds the equivalent of 16% of the world's wealth, said Bezos was misrepresenting the conclusions of global economists regarding the US system.
"Your claim that the top 1% pays 40% of taxes and the bottom 50% only 3% is misleading: It captures just one tax—the federal income tax—and ignores all the rest: payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, excise duties, etc., many of which are regressive," said Zucman.
Bezos continued debating the issue on social media on Wednesday, sharing an article that explained how numerous analyses have determined he has paid an effective tax rate hovering around 1%.
"Great to see Bezos keeps bringing up his own massive tax avoidance. Keep digging! This travesty needs a real public debate," said historian Rutger Bregman, sharing a graph from Zucman's research, which shows how the average tax rate of the richest Americans has plummeted in recent decades.
At Newsweek on Wednesday, the magazine's editors wrote that Bezos was correct in his CNBC interview that "one billionaire's larger tax bill will not fund a modern state by itself."
"The deeper issue is whether the tax system asks comparable civic seriousness from wages, capital gains, inheritances, consumption, and payroll," wrote the editors. "A nurse's paycheck is easy to tax because it is visible. A billionaire's wealth can grow through assets that may remain untaxed until sale, or perhaps sheltered safely in some offshore domain."
"The political danger in Bezos’ argument" to allow the bottom 50% of American earners to pay nothing in income tax, the editors added, "is that it lets billionaires sound generous while leaving the structure of wealth largely untouched."
Thom Hartmann of The Hartmann Report said Bezos' push to eliminate income taxes for a huge swath of Americans benefits him and other billionaires in three ways, while ultimately harming those he claims to be trying to help save money:
First, it gets millions of Americans on the “we shouldn’t ever pay any income taxes at all” train that’s been rolling for billionaires ever since [former President Ronald] Reagan first gutted our tax code, leading to an explosion of the morbidly rich.
Second, it gets those same average, tax-paying voters on board with Bezos’ second claim, that America’s debt problem isn’t because we’re taxing too little but because we’re “spending too much.”
If we just got rid of—or privatized/profitized—all those pesky “socialist” programs like Medicaid, food stamps, free public highways, fire and police departments, Social Security, food and drug regulation and inspection, air traffic control and TSA, housing subsidies, Pell grants, free public schools, etc., then even billionaires could safely live tax-free.
Third, it means that Bezos will be able to reduce his own labor costs, because the marketplace in which pay rates exist are always exclusively reacting to “after tax” dollars.
Hartmann highlighted Bezos' resistance to a wealth tax and a fair tax rate with an anecdote about "a very wealthy German businessman" he once saw interviewed by an American reporter on Bloomberg News.
The businessman asked the reporter "how he could possibly live in a country" that taxes "very wealthy and successful people" at about 60%.
"Why don’t you lead a revolt against those high taxes?" he asked, his tone implying the businessman was badly in need of some good old American rebellion-making.
The German businessman paused for a long moment and then leaned forward, putting his elbows on his knees, his clasped hands in front of him pointing at the reporter as if in prayer.
He stared at the man for another long moment and then, in the tone of voice an adult uses to correct a spoiled child, said simply, "I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country."
In contrast, Hartmann wrote, "the billionaires and foreign oligarchs who fund the Republican Party and right-wing media think it’s perfectly fine to rip the financial and political guts out of their own nation and turn its people against each other if it lets them keep a few extra bucks."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Big Tech GOP Donor Marc Andreessen Claims AI Better Than Human Workers: 'Never Gets Sick... Never Files HR Complaints'
"Having to hire human workers who might have pesky demands for more pay, better hours, or better working conditions is but a nuisance to them," one software engineer wrote about tech industry bosses.
May 21, 2026
A leading billionaire right-wing donor and tech evangelist raised eyebrows during a podcast appearance this week with a blunt explanation for why he believes artificial intelligence is superior to human workers.
The past few months have seen a wave of tech industry layoffs that companies have acknowledged were driven wholly or in part by AI: From Meta, which slashed 8,000 jobs on Wednesday and reassigned thousands of other workers to AI roles; to Intuit, which announced a cut of about 17% of its workforce the same day to put more focus on the emerging technology.
The venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who leads one of Silicon Valley's most powerful venture capital firms, Andreessen Horowitz, declared as recently as last month that despite report after report of mass layoffs, "‘AI job loss’ narratives are all fake,” and the industry would facilitate a "massive jobs boom" because it allows individual workers to be "endlessly more productive."
But during an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience on Tuesday, he seemed to suggest that he viewed the human workforce as not only inferior to AI but also an expendable nuisance that employers would be better off without.
He imagined the programmer of the future "overseeing an org chart of bots" numbering in the thousands, which would go on to exponentially increase productivity.
This, he said, is preferable to the current, inefficient model of hiring human laborers. He used the example of the graphic design work on Rogan's set to illustrate the point.
"You hire somebody... and you tell them you want a screen display and you want it to be an animated version of the thing you got back here," he said. "They spend, you know, two weeks doing it. It's like, 'Okay, that's pretty good, but I actually want the whole thing to be whatever, purple and green.' And they spend a week doing that. And they come back, and you're like, 'I actually prefer the old version.'"
“The guy gets, like, pissed at you because he’s like, ‘I just wasted my time.’ The bot’s like, 'No problem,' you know, no sweat, like whatever you want, and we can try it 12 more times if you want. Or you tell it, you know, this is terrible. Like, I can’t believe you came back to me with this. It has all these bugs. It’s like, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry. I’ll go fix these.’"
"By the way, [it] never gets drunk, never gets sick, never gets high," he continued.
"Never gets depressed because his girlfriend broke up with him," Rogan interjected.
"Never files HR complaints," Andreessen added.
Andreessen said this mass adoption of "armies" of AI workers would begin in tech fields like coding, but would quickly expand out to other fields like writing, medicine, and law.
He described artificial intelligence as technology that would grant workers a "universal basic superpower." But while some proponents of AI expansion imagine it as a tool to liberate workers from long hours by automating menial tasks, Andreessen said it was actually doing the opposite for workers in the coding world.
He said one would assume that “if AI coding makes them four times more productive... then maybe they’re working only a fourth the time and now they’ve got a great life,” but “what’s actually happened is virtually to a person, they’re all working more hours than ever to the point where there is a new term of art that’s used in the valley called the ‘AI vampire.’”
“You’re up all night doing AI coding because you are so productive," Andreessen said approvingly. "You’re getting so much done that you can’t turn off. The opportunity cost of going to sleep is too high because if you go to sleep, you won’t be with your 20 AI coding agents, keeping them working on all the projects that you have them working on. And so people stop sleeping.”
"They're clearly, clearly, clearly not taking care of themselves, and they're absolutely ecstatic," Andreessen said, "because they are able to produce five times, 20 times more code per hour than they could in the past."
The comments drew widespread backlash from critics across the political spectrum, who noted Andreessen's cavalier disregard for the fate of human workers in his imagined future scenario.
His mention of "HR complaints" in particular raised red flags for those who noted that the male-dominated worlds of Silicon Valley and venture capitalism have had many high-profile sexual harassment scandals.
But more broadly, it was interpreted as an expression of contempt for workers who demand a modicum of dignity from their jobs.
One software developer, who writes the Substack blog Dialectics of Decline on Substack under the name Scarlet, described Andreessen's comments as an encapsulation of an attitude that she recently said was "destroying the career I once loved."
I noticed that my bosses were getting infected with the mind virus sold to them by the AI hype men. They started to believe we weren’t needed anymore, or, if we were, we were now capable of producing 10x the amount of code in the same amount of time...
Having to hire human workers who might have pesky demands for more pay, better hours, or better working conditions is but a nuisance to them. They want to streamline their businesses by—ideally—not needing to hire humans at all. They are being sold a dream of a 100% agent-operated business where they purchase tokens instead of labor hours, and at a fraction of the cost. After all, agents won’t ever try to unionize. They don’t need weekends off. They don’t get sick or fall pregnant. They can’t strike. They won’t fight back.
It’s a mindset that Andreessen—one of the most prominent fixtures of the so-called “tech right” that spent big to elect Trump in 2024—is apparently seeking to export to the entire country.
Andreessen Horowitz and its billionaire founders have dumped an unprecedented $115 million to influence elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, more than other more prominent donors like Elon Musk and George Soros.
According to a report last week from the New York Times:
Already Andreessen Horowitz has put $47.5 million into the crypto super PAC network, Fairshake, since Election Day 2024. And the firm’s interests have expanded beyond crypto. It helped found Leading the Future, a super PAC network focused on electing pro-artificial intelligence legislators, which is modeled on Fairshake, and donated $50 million to it. Fairshake and Leading the Future both back Republicans and Democrats.
Andreessen Horowitz and its co-founders have also together donated $12 million to MAGA Inc., President Trump’s super PAC, including $6 million in March. A trust linked to Mr. Andreessen donated nearly $900,000 to the Republican National Committee that same month.
Andreessen's comments on Rogan's show inspired calls from progressive legislators, including Silicon Valley's Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said it was an example of why Washington should "tax agentic AI more than workers" rather than providing tax breaks to companies that invest in AI infrastructure.
But the influence of tech oligarchs like Andreessen is also starting to unnerve some on the right, like the influential conservative pundit James Lindsay, who said he was getting "really sick of anti-human tech weirdos leading anything."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Memorial Day Cookouts Will Be 13% More Expensive This Year on Average Thanks to Trump's Tariffs, Iran War
After the president made clear he doesn't "think about" Americans' financial struggles, a report highlights rising costs of beef, produce, and other supplies for backyard barbecues due to Trump's policies.
May 21, 2026
With the US-Israeli war on Iran pushing gas prices up past $4.50 per gallon and American households already having spent nearly $300 that they wouldn't have otherwise on fuel, some families may opt to stay home this coming Memorial Day weekend—but a new analysis released Thursday shows that even without travel expenses, celebrations are likely to be more costly than they were last year thanks to President Donald Trump's policies.
Both Trump's assault on Iran—and the predictable result of the Iranians closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade waterway, in retaliation—and his tariff and trade policies are likely to make the holiday more expensive, with prices for barbecue classics up 13% on average since last year, more than four times the inflation rate, according to two think tanks, Groundwork Collaborative and The Century Foundation (TCF).
Ground beef for hamburgers is up 20%, while Johnsonville bratwursts are up 28%, Kraft hot dogs are up 12%, and Martin's rolls are 19% more expensive than they were in 2025.
Those shopping for produce won't fare much better, with the average price of a head of iceberg lettuce up 19% over last year, seedless watermelon costing 17% more, and six ears of yellow corn costing a whopping 98% more than it did in 2025.
"Higher fresh-produce prices in particular reflect Trump’s mishandling of the economy," reads the report. "Last year, the number of farmers filing for bankruptcy rose 46%, as Trump’s tariffs unleashed chaos and uncertainty in the industry. Fertilizer is an essential component for growing every item of produce and tariffs in place for much of 2025 drove fertilizer prices ever higher; these prices have remained elevated even after the Trump administration was forced to roll them back due to backlash."
"From the ticket counter to the cookout, consumers are scaling back and going without in the face of Trump’s summer sticker shock."
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at TCF, emphasized that both the tariffs and the war are "two decisions the president made and can undo whenever he wants but by his own admission he doesn’t spend any time thinking about Americans’ financial situation."
"Families are getting squeezed on the price of everything, and leaders in Washington don’t seem to be paying attention," said Jones.
Higher tomato costs—which are up 22% over last year—come after Trump ended the US-Mexico tomato trade agreement that had been in place for decades. Instead, he imposed a 17% tariff on tomatoes that come from the country's southern neighbor.
Even the act of serving food and packing it up as leftovers will be more expensive this year, with heavy-duty aluminum foil costing 18% more—also thanks to the tariffs—and disposable plasticware up 20%.
"The Middle East is a major producer of oil and petrochemicals, which is used to produce plastic," reads the report. "Increases in the price of plastic will ripple across grocery bills for months to come as packaging gets more expensive as well."
Less than two weeks after the president—who campaigned on reducing the cost of living—proudly stated that he doesn't "think about Americans’ financial situation" when it comes to the unprovoked Iran conflict, Groundwork and TCF also highlighted the impact the war of choice has had on jet fuel prices, and in turn, air travel.
"Jet fuel has soared to record highs and companies are passing these costs on to consumers," the report states. "The average domestic airfare ticket is now 31% more expensive than in January, according to industry data. For a family of four, this equates to an extra $360 on plane tickets for a typical flight."
Fuel prices contributed to Spirit Airlines' decision to shut down entirely, leaving larger carriers with no budget airline to compete with.
“Trump’s senseless tariffs and illegal war are robbing American families of their relaxing summer vacation," said Breyon Williams, chief economist for Groundwork. "From the ticket counter to the cookout, consumers are scaling back and going without in the face of Trump’s summer sticker shock.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
This Memorial Day Weekend, Americans Will Spend $3.5 Billion More on Gas Thanks to Trump's Iran War
The average household has already paid an additional $291 for gas since the war began and could spend $1,450 by year's end.
May 20, 2026
Americans' travel plans for this Memorial Day weekend have gotten a lot more expensive as a result of President Donald Trump's war with Iran.
A tracker released on Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) projects that Americans will collectively spend an extra $3.5 billion on gas over the holiday weekend due to the global rise in oil costs.
The costs of gas have risen sharply, to above $4.50 per gallon across the US on average, as a result of Iran's restriction of travel through the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the war that the US and Israel launched at the end of February.
“Americans were already struggling with the high cost of living before this war started,” said Carl Davis, research director at ITEP. “The fact that their summer travel plans just got a whole lot more expensive isn’t going to help with that.”
Using publicly available data and price forecasts from the US Energy Information Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the US Census Bureau, ITEP determined that as a result of the war, Americans have paid about $39.6 billion in additional gas costs in less than three months since the war began.
It is projected that if current conditions continue, the total cost would be about $193 billion by the end of the year.
The average household has already paid an additional $291 for gas since the war began and could spend $1,450 by year's end. However, the cost varies by region, and the tool allows users to estimate their household's added cost based on where they live and how many family members they have.
The tracker only accounts for increased gasoline prices. It does not include price hikes caused by the war on other essentials, such as home utilities and food. Federal data released earlier this month showed that inflation has surged to its highest level since May 2023.
It also does not account for the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the war. Pentagon officials said that it had cost $25 billion in April, though other independent estimates have placed the total cost much higher.
As Trump flails in response to rising prices, which have driven his approval ratings to their lowest low of his second term, he has proposed suspending federal gas taxes. Lawmakers in both parties have introduced bills that would temporarily suspend the tax, which adds an extra 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel.
However, ITEP argued that these proposals would be "ineffective as they offer very little relief to families" and that they "also run the risk of straining public budgets at a time when governments at all levels are facing some of the same higher costs as the public brought on by this war."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular