March, 16 2011, 05:25pm EDT
Schakowsky Introduces Bill to Tax Millionaires and Billionaires
The most popular way to reduce the deficit, according to 81% of Americans? Put a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year. -- NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, March 2, 2011
WASHINGTON
Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), member of President Obama's 18-member Fiscal Commission, introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. Original co-sponsors include co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), as well as Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR).
Income inequality in America is the worst we've seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?
"In the United States today, the richest 1% owns 34 % of our nation's wealth - that's more than the entire bottom 90%, who own just 29% of the country's wealth," said Rep. Schakowsky. "And the top one-hundredth of 1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans? $31,244. It's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, which is why I introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act. This isn't about punishment or revenge. It's about fairness. It's about avoiding budget cuts that harm middle class families and those who aspire to it. We can choose to cut education, job creation and health care, or we can choose to ask those who can contribute more to do so."
The current top tax bracket begins at $373,000 in income and fails to distinguish between the "well off" and billionaires - like the top 20 hedge fund managers whose average income last year was over $1 billion.
The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:
- $1-10 million: 45%
- $10-20 million: 46%
- $20-100 million: 47%
- $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
- $1 billion and over: 49%
The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.
Support for Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act:
"I think very wealthy people like me should pay substantially higher taxes, since we have done exceedingly well in the last few decades," said Katharine Myers*, a millionaire from Pennsylvania whose income comes from royalties from the Myers-Briggs personality test, created by her mother-in-law, which she has managed with Peter Myers since the 1980s. "Our taxpayer-funded government contributed to my success." Myers has been a supporter of United for a Fair Economy and its Responsible Wealth project for many years.
"I think very wealthy people like me should pay substantially higher taxes, since we have done exceedingly well in the last few decades," said Katharine Myers*, a millionaire from Pennsylvania whose income comes from royalties from the Myers-Briggs personality test, created by her mother-in-law, which she has managed with Peter Myers since the 1980s. "Our taxpayer-funded government contributed to my success." Myers has been a supporter of United for a Fair Economy and its Responsible Wealth project for many years.
"It's time we treated multi-millionaires the same way we treat working families - by creating a tax bracket to match their income," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "There's no reason to treat the wealthiest one percent of the country any more specially than anyone else, and right now that's exactly what our tax system is doing. The Republican war on working families means cutting from the middle and handing the savings to the top. Instead, let's have everyone pay their fair share to create jobs and get the economy moving again."
"Millionaires and billionaires should be giving to charity not getting it," said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "The middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who aren't paying their fair share. This bill is part of a plan to level the playing field."
"A tax system where families earning several thousand dollars are taxed at the same rate as millionaires is unfair, and unsustainable," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD). "The Fairness in Taxation Act is a common sense solution to eliminating this inequality and balancing the federal budget. At a time when House Republicans are demanding that working families, teachers, and firefighters bear the burden of reducing the deficit, millionaires should be required to contribute their fair share."
Groups that have endorsed Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act:
United for a Fair Economy, Citizens for Tax Justice, Citizen Action Illinois, U.S. Action, Campaign for America's Future, Wealth for the Common Good, and The Agenda Project.
"Congresswoman Schakowsky has shown that there is another way," said Steve Wamhoff, tax expert from Citizens for Tax Justice. "Her proposal would make the federal income tax more progressive by introducing higher rates for taxpayers with income in excess of $1 million. Millionaires have benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts enacted over the past decade, so it seems entirely reasonable that they share in the sacrifices needed to get our fiscal house in order."
"Congresswoman Schakowsky has shown that there is another way," said Steve Wamhoff, tax expert from Citizens for Tax Justice. "Her proposal would make the federal income tax more progressive by introducing higher rates for taxpayers with income in excess of $1 million. Millionaires have benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts enacted over the past decade, so it seems entirely reasonable that they share in the sacrifices needed to get our fiscal house in order."
"The budget cuts being debated in Washington shamefully require middle class families to pay the price for the recklessness of the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who broke our economy," said Brian Miller, Executive Director of United for a Fair Economy. "Instead of punishing middle class families and de-funding America, the Fairness in Taxation Act asks those who have benefitted so heavily from the economic bounce of Wall Street to share responsibility for getting our nation's finances on track."
"Any sensible program for deficit reduction must begin with changing the massive tax cuts for the very wealthy," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "Those tax give-aways were a major cause of our current deficit. In an era of excessive inequality we should end Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We need progressive revenues not just to bring down deficits, but also to finance investments in job and sustainable growth. The introduction of the Fairness in Taxation Act is an important step that will be popular with the American people."
United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power that corrupts democracy, deepens the racial divide and tears communities apart. We use popular economics education, trainings, and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy. United for a Fair Economy believes another world is possible. We envision a global society which respects the humanity, rights, and creativity of all people.
LATEST NEWS
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Break It Down': Mamdani Gives His Perspective on Historic NYC Win
Zohran Mamdani solidified his win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with the release of ranked choice voting results.
Jul 01, 2025
Last week, democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani stunned in an upset victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary—sparking broader conversations about the future of the party and sending shockwaves through the American political system.
One week later, on Tuesday, Mamdani both solidified his win thanks to the release of the election's ranked choice voting results and unveiled a new video highlighting factors that in his view were key to his campaign's success. Mamdani credits his relentless focus on affordability and a commitment to reaching all New York City voters, including those who have previously voted for U.S. President Donald Trump, are inconsistent primary voters, or who speak languages besides English.
The goal, in Mamdani's words, was nothing short of rebuilding "a coalition that had frayed over years of disappointment and neglect, to win people back to a Democratic Party that puts working people first."
On Tuesday, New York City's Board of Elections announced the ranked-choice voting results from the June 24 primary, underscoring Mamdani's decisive victory. Mamdani secured 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%. All other candidates' votes were reallocated to Mamdani and Cuomo in the third round of voting. All told, some 545,000 New Yorkers ranked Mamdani on their ballots.
In the video, Mamdani touted some of his impressive margins, including his ability to win over districts that had gone for Trump in the last election, noting the inroads that Trump made in New York City in 2024. According to an analysis from Gothamist, Mamdani won 30% of primary election districts Trump carried in the general election last year.
Mamdani said his campaign achieved this by visiting areas that went for Trump, "not to lecture, but to listen."
He also said that his campaign knew it could turn out less consistent primary voters if "they saw themselves in our policies."
"We ran a campaign that tried to talk to every New Yorker, whether I could speak their languages or just tried to... and the coalition that came out on Tuesday, reflected the mosaic of these five boroughs," Mamdani said.
As part of the focus on connecting with voters, Mamdani put out campaign videos with him speaking in languages like Hindi and Spanish.
On Election Day, Mamdani led in areas with majority Asian, white, and Hispanic voters, while Cuomo led in areas with majority Black voters. "We narrowed Andrew Cuomo once sizable lead with Black voters, outright winning young Black New Yorkers in neighborhoods like Harlem and Flatbush," he said.
Mamdani also highlighted that he trounced Cuomo despite the super political action committee money supporting the former governor.
"We rewrote the rule book by, get this, talking to New Yorkers," he said. "Politics in this city won't ever be the same, and it's all thanks to you. The next chapter begins today New York."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Help From Vance, Senate GOP Votes to Decimate Medicaid to Fund Tax Cuts for Rich
"Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
Jul 01, 2025
With a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance, Senate Republicans on Tuesday narrowly passed budget legislation that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history and trillions of dollars in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.
The Senate tally was 50-50 prior to Vance's intervention, with Democrats unanimously opposed and Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossing the aisle to vote against the bill, which now heads back to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
"JD Vance was the deciding vote to cut Medicaid across the country," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in response to the Senate vote. "An absolute and utter betrayal of working families."
The 887-page legislation includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts that would result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. Analysts and advocates warn the proposed cuts would have cascading effects across the country, shuttering rural hospitals and devastating state budgets.
"Senate Republicans just voted to close nursing homes and hospitals around the country. These cuts will hit rural areas hardest, but nowhere is safe," said Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works. "Even if your local hospital doesn't close, it will have more patients and fewer staff due to the loss of Medicaid funding. Half of nursing homes will lose staff, and a quarter will close. All to give trillions in tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts. The rest of us will suffer for it."
The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions and potentially inflicting major damage to local economies across the U.S.—as well as clean energy programs, Planned Parenthood funding, and more.
Even with such seismic cuts, the Senate bill would still add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years due to the size of the measure's tax breaks, which would flow primarily to the rich and large corporations. Experts have said that, if enacted, the Republican legislation would spur the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
"This abominable bill will make history—in appalling ways," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Never before has legislation taken so much from struggling families to give so much to the richest. It makes the biggest cuts to food aid for hungry families, executes the largest cuts to healthcare ever, adds trillions to the national debt—all to give $114 billion to the richest 1% in a single year. It's no wonder that this bill is also extremely unpopular. Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
The bill also contains a $150 billion boost for the Pentagon and tens of billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"This Republican bill is about caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, and Mar-a-Lago over the middle class," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "If this becomes law, only the ultrawealthy will make it through unscathed. Every other American will be hurt in one way or another, whether it's cancer patients losing their health coverage, kids going hungry, or families being forced to pay higher utility bills and insurance premiums."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and [President Donald] Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts," Wyden added. "The rest of us will suffer for it. The United States will be a weaker, sicker, and poorer country as a direct result of what the Republicans are doing."
The Senate just passed the largest cut to low-income programs in a single law in US history. It would rip health insurance from more than 10 million people and take food assistance away from millions of households, including families with children and veterans.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 1, 2025
House Republicans are expected to move quickly to pass the Senate-approved legislation before Trump's July 4 deadline, but the bill appears likely to face significant pushback—particularly from far-right members who believe the measure's spending cuts aren't sufficiently aggressive.
Punchbowlreported that the House Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday "to begin to prepare the bill for floor consideration."
"The full House is expected back in Washington Wednesday morning, giving the chamber two days to pass the package before" July 4, the outlet noted.
Senate Republican leaders locked in the bill's passage after winning the support of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The American Prospect's David Dayen reported that Murkowski "was able to secure a waiver from cost-sharing provisions that would for the first time force states to pay for part of" SNAP.
"In order to get that past the Senate parliamentarian, 10 states with the highest payment error rates had to be eligible for the five-year waiver, including big states like New York and Florida, and several blue states as well," Dayen explained. "The expanded SNAP waivers mean that in the short term, only certain states with average or even below-average payment error rates will have to pay into their SNAP program; already, the language provided that states with the lowest error rates wouldn't have to pay."
After voting for the bill, Murkowski suggested that Republicans in the House should change it—meaning it would have to pass the Senate again before reaching Trump's desk.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement that "this fight is not over," pointing to the House Republicans who have "voiced concern about the massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, in addition to the trillions this bill adds to the national debt."
"Since the House last voted for the bill, the Senate has only made the bill more expensive and enacted more cuts to critical programs that their constituents rely on," said Kass. "The question is: Will House members stand up for their constituents, or blindly follow Trump and his elite backers?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular