SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 27 2017, 02:30pm EDT
Contact:
Sam Quigley, sam@patrioticmillionaires.org, 202-446-0489
Patriotic Millionaires Call On Congress To Preserve The Estate Tax
Don't Eliminate the Most American Tax During a Time of Unprecedented Inequality.
WASHINGTON
Abolishing the estate tax would be unseemly and irresponsible, argue members of the Patriotic Millionaires in an open letter to President Trump and members of Congress.
Several hundred inaugural signers, including 130 people who will personally owe estate tax, call on Congress to drop the idea. Signers include Robert Crandall, the former Chairman of American Airlines, Arnold Hiatt, former CEO of Striderite, Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of AT&T, and many more. The letter is visible at www.DefendEstateTax.com.
"The estate tax was established a century ago at a time of historic inequalities to put a brake on the build-up of concentrated wealth," said Morris Pearl, chairman of the group and former Managing Director at BlackRock. "Now during a time of stunning wealth inequality, Congress wants to abolish the tax. This is a really bad idea for our country and democracy."
The estate tax is paid by only a small fraction of the wealthiest Americas, starting at $5.49 million for an individual and almost $11 million for a couple. Fewer than 1 in 500 households will owe the tax. Despite this tax only affecting extremely wealthy Americans, President Trump and Congress have decided its repeal is important enough to include in their recently released tax cut framework. Even though millions of people have had their lives rocked by hurricanes and wildfires in recent months, they apparently believe a massive tax break for the wealthy is a priority.
"We expect thousands more will sign our public letter," said Chuck Collins, a member of the Patriotic Millionaires who initiated a similar call to preserve the estate tax in 2001 that enlisted over 1000 multi-millionaires and billionaires in defense of the tax, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Paul Newman.
"The President says he won't benefit from his tax plan," said Stephen Prince, President and CEO of Card Marketing Services and a signer to the letter who will personally owe estate tax. But as the letter points out, President Trump's children will be enormous beneficiaries. "By repealing the estate tax, President Trump himself will transfer billions of dollars that currently belong to the American people directly to Donald Jr., Eric, Tiffany, Ivanka, Barron and any other heirs he may have."
"My kids all know that they can and will inherit $11.5 million from their Mom and I tax free when we die. All of which they did not earn, but I am fine with them having it," said Prince, "but everything beyond that, the U.S. Government will get its share, whatever that is, and they can have the rest. I do not support creating a whole generation of kids who never made nor learned how to make money. If my kids' pro-rata share of $11.5 million plus isn't enough, then why in the world would I want to leave them more?"
Other signers of the letter who will personally owe the estate tax have spoken out forcefully against its repeal. In their own words:
"Eliminating the Estate Tax means that the most wealthy are abandoning responsibility to help ensure the general welfare. This is equivalent to 'Let them eat cake.' We all know how that ended," said Patriotic Millionaire Robert Goldschmidt.
"Wealth should be earned, not inherited," said Blaine Garst, retired Apple software engineer. "Leveling the playing field with the estate tax enables the most capable to succeed, instead of the losers who dope with Daddy's money."
"Some of the most successful people in our history would not have had the opportunity to be so if this country allowed the unfettered flow of wealth from one generation to the next. We are, and always have been, the land of opportunity. Nothing threatens that more that the repeal of the estate tax," said Bob Haines, Patriotic Millionaire.
"For generations, our lawmakers have recognized the social and fiscal need for a tax that limits the transfer of dynastic wealth," said Patricia Martone, attorney. "The only thing that has changed is that we now have a President who unabashedly seeks to use his office to maximize his wealth and that of his family, and who has put exceptionally wealthy people in charge of economic and tax policy. They would love to have their families be part of a new class of dynastic wealth. Repeal of the estate tax is contrary to the core American values of hard work and class mobility."
The Patriotic Millionaires is a group of high-net worth Americans who share a profound concern about the destabilizing level of inequality in America. Our work centers on the two things that matter most in a capitalist democracy: power and money. Our goal is to ensure that the country's political economy is structured to meet the needs of regular Americans, rather than just millionaires. We focus on three "first" principles: a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens.
(202) 446-0489LATEST NEWS
'Colossally Wrong Decision' as Facebook Parent Company Wins Instagram-WhatsApp Antitrust Case
"This court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Nov 19, 2025
Anti-monopoly advocates are warning that a federal judge's ruling in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a major antitrust case will have negative repercussions for US consumers by allowing Facebook to continue wielding monopoly power in the social media marketplace.
Judge James Boasberg in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate US antitrust policy.
Boasberg found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not proven Meta holds monopoly power in the personal social networking market, "largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels," said the American Economic Liberties Project (ALEP).
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that Boasberg's ruling demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about the economics of the social media market.
"The court's opinion reflects a view of the market that is at odds with how digital-platform power operates today," he said. "Meta systematically acquired emerging competitors precisely because direct, head-to-head competition threatened its dominance. Meta’s consolidation strategy deprived consumers of innovative services and prevented the development of a truly competitive social-networking ecosystem."
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of ALEP, described the ruling as a "colossally wrong decision" that "turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it."
"These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family," she said. "By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Hegde added that it should now fall upon US Congress to "step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future."
Open Markets Institute policy counsel Tara Pincock said Boasberg's ruling was "profoundly misguided," and accused the judge of blocking the FTC from reversing a mistake it made last decade when it signed off on Meta's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.
"Judge Boasberg erred in concluding that Facebook competes with TikTok and YouTube," said Pincock, a former state assistant attorney general in Utah. "I was part of the bipartisan coalition of states that brought this case alongside the FTC in December 2020, and the court’s framing misrepresents what is at stake. This case has never been about generic 'time and attention.' It is about how people connect, communicate, and build communities—and about how a powerful company abused its dominance to protect itself from competition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocasio-Cortez Says ‘We Should Not Be Entertaining a Bailout’ of AI Industry as Bubble Fears Grow
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said no government rescue of artificial intelligence firms "as healthcare is being denied to everyday Americans."
Nov 19, 2025
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday that the federal government should not consider a taxpayer bailout of the artificial intelligence industry as fears grow that the rapidly expanding sector poses systemic risks to the global economy.
"Should this bubble pop, we should not be entertaining a bailout," Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said during a House subcommittee hearing. "We should not entertain a bailout of these corporations as healthcare is being denied to everyday Americans, as SNAP and food assistance is being denied to everyday Americans, precipitating some of the very mental crises that people are turning to AI chat bots to try to resolve."
Ocasio-Cortez echoed the concerns of industry insiders and analysts who have warned in recent weeks that the AI investment boom created a bubble whose rupture would cause far-reaching economic carnage.
"We're talking about a massive economic bubble," the New York Democrat said Tuesday. "Depending on the exposure of that bubble, we could see 2008-style threats to economic stability."
Ocasio-Cortez's remarks came on the same day that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sounded the alarm about potential Trump administration plans to "use taxpayer dollars to prop up OpenAI and other AI companies at the expense of working class Americans."
"The Trump administration’s close ties with AI executives and donors—including millions of dollars of contributions to President Trump’s new ballroom project—raise concerns that the administration will bail out AI executives and shareholders while leaving taxpayers to foot the bill," Warren wrote in a letter to the White House's AI czar, David Sacks.
OpenAI, a firm at the center of the nascent industry, has reportedly been in discussion with the Trump administration about the possibility of receiving federal loan guarantees for the construction of chip factories in the United States. Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, warned earlier this month that "it is entirely possible that OpenAI and the White House are concocting a scheme to siphon taxpayer money into OpenAI’s coffers, perhaps with some tribute paid to Trump and his family."
"Perhaps not so coincidentally, OpenAI president Greg Brockman was among the attendees at a dinner for donors to Trump’s White House ballroom, though neither he nor OpenAI have been reported to be actual donors," Weissman added.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal last week, Sarah Myers West and Amba Kak of the AI Now Institute observed that "the federal government is already bailing out the AI industry with regulatory changes and public funds that will protect companies in the event of a private sector pullback."
"The Trump administration is rolling out the red carpet for these firms," they wrote. "The administration’s AI Action Plan aims to accelerate AI adoption within the government and military by pushing changes to regulatory and procurement processes. Government contracting offers stable, often lucrative long-term contracts—exactly what these firms will need if the private market for AI dips."
"Federal policy has jumped the gun: We don’t yet know if AI will transform the economy or even be profitable," West and Kak added. "Yet Washington is insulating the industry from all sorts of risk. If a bubble does pop, we’ll all be left holding the bag."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Trashes 'Big, Fat, Rich Insurance Companies.' Progressives: 'Wait Until We Tell You About Medicare for All'
"If we had Medicare for All everyone would have healthcare with no premiums, deductibles or co-payments and we’d save $650 billion and 68,000 lives a year."
Nov 19, 2025
President Donald Trump on Tuesday proclaimed he would not sign any fix to the nation's healthcare crisis that would send money to what he termed, in all capital letters, as the "BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH"—and progressives did not hesitate to point out that by taking for-profit, private insurers out of the healthcare equation, one would quickly—if they cared about covering more people with less money—be left with something more akin to the kind of universal, publicly-supported healthcare systems that most nations in the developed world already enjoy.
"Just wait until we tell you about Medicare for All," said Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat running for the US Senate in Michigan, in response to Trump's Truth Social post.
The president has been openly railing against the insurance companies that benefit from federal subsidies that are central to the healthcare plans made available on exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but his solution—a nebulous call for direct payments to individuals who could then somehow purchase "THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER INSURANCE" with those same federal dollars.
With significant cuts to Medicaid—the largest in the program's history—and an end to ACA subsidies that could see premiums double or more for over 20 million people in the coming year, Democrats are warning of a healthcare crisis in 2026 like nothing the nation has ever seen.
But the solution being offered by Trump and his GOP allies in Congress, according to progressive critics, would only further entrench the crisis.
"Trump’s 'healthcare' plan will bankrupt and kill millions of Americans," warned Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, a single-payer advocacy group. "We can eliminate the private insurance industry, and save $650 billion per year with Medicare for All—which would cover everyone, save families money, and include dental, vision, prescriptions, and long-term care."
"We can eliminate the private insurance industry, and save $650 billion per year with Medicare for All."
On Sunday, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), went on "Face the Nation" in order to put some "meat on the bone" regarding direct payments and said his office was working closely with Trump's White House on the proposal.
WATCH: @SenBillCassidy tells @margbrennan about his health care proposal, saying he wants to "...take the $26 billion that would be going to insurance companies" if the enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are extended, and instead "give it directly to the American… pic.twitter.com/xPLScs7YU8
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) November 14, 2025
Essentially, what the Cassidy-Trump plan would do is replace federal subsidies for inadequate health plans with high deductibles from private insurance giants with federal cash payments that people could only use to purchase—wait for it—inadequate health plans with high deductibles from private insurance giants.
After Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz, also on Sunday, played a similar card on behalf of the Trump administration by saying, "If you had a check in the mail, you could buy the insurance you thought was best for you," immediate pushback followed.
Warren Gunnels, a longtime policy advisor to Sanders in the Senate, was among those who slammed Oz's efforts to deceive the American people by pushing the Trump administration's direct payments.
"If we had Medicare for All, everyone would have healthcare with no premiums, deductibles, or co-payments, and we’d save $650 billion and 68,000 lives a year," said Gunnels in response to Oz's remarks. "If we gave cancer patients, at most, a check for $6,500 for a $150,000 treatment, they’d go bankrupt and die an early death."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular