February, 12 2019, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sam Quigley
202-446-0489
Millionaires of New York to Governor Cuomo: Raise Our Taxes
"We millionaires and multi-millionaires of New York can easily invest more in the Empire State, and lawmakers have a moral and a fiduciary duty to make sure we do so.”
Albany, NY
Yesterday, as Governor Cuomo and the New York State Assembly consider proposals to close New York State's $2.3 billion budget deficit, a group of millionaires challenged them to muster up the political courage to pass the obvious solution to the state's fiscal problems: tax the rich.
New York has more millionaires and billionaires than any other state, yet low-income and middle-class New Yorkers continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of funding the state government. In a letter sent to the Governor's office yesterday signed by 48 New York millionaires, they call on Gov. Cuomo to tax the rich to invest in the state's communities, specifically by expanding the state's millionaires tax to additional high-end brackets, and by closing the carried interest loophole abused by millionaire fund managers by implementing a state-level "carried interest fairness fee."
Taken together, these two proposals would raise over $5.6 billion per year. The text of the letter, as well as a full list of signers, can be found both HERE and below.
As this letter was being delivered, Morris Pearl, the Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and former managing director of BlackRock, Inc., the world's largest asset manager, was testifying in front of a joint legislative hearing with the New York State Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committee with the same message: that New York's millionaires need to be paying more. In his testimony, he directly responded to claims from wealthy New Yorkers who threaten to move to another state if their taxes increase with the following remark:
"I will tell you as someone who knows a lot of rich people in New York, the rich people who make decisions on where to live based mainly on taxes do not live in New York, and they have not lived in New York in decades. They moved to other states like Kansas generations ago. It would be a colossal mistake for us to compromise the things that actually make rich people want to live in this state in order to appease these fictional New York millionaires who care enough about taxes to leave if we expand the millionaires tax, but not enough to leave with our taxes at their current rate. Please don't buy the empty threats of millionaires who claim they'll leave the state if you raise their tax rate."
For further comments or questions, please contact Sam Quigley at sam@patrioticmillionaires.org.
-------------
New York Millionaires' Letter to Governor Cuomo
Dear Governor Cuomo and Legislative Leaders,
We are a group of millionaires and multi-millionaires who want to do our part to make New York the best state in the nation for all of its citizens. To that end, we are writing today to urge you to tax us (and people like us!) and to use that revenue to make investments in our state that will help everyone.
Specifically, we hope you will support the following new tax policies that will bring both additional revenues to our state and more fairness to our tax code:
- A new "Multi-Millionaires Tax" that would add new rates and/or new brackets for households making over $5 million, $10 million, and $100 million per year, which could raise $2-$3 billion per year or more, depending on tax rates.
- A state-level "fairness fee" to close the egregious "carried interest" tax loophole, a gross mischaracterization of income which allows fund managers to pay half the tax rate of other working people with the same income.
To be clear, we do not support these additional taxes because of some heightened sense of altruism, but rather because of an exceptional understanding of our own self-interest.
Raising taxes on high-income New Yorkers like us in order to invest in our people and our communities is not just the right moral choice, it also happens to be in the long-term economic best interest of everyone, including millionaires like us.
Our infrastructure is crumbling. Nearly three million of our residents, many of them children, live in poverty. Our lack of investment in education from pre-k to college limits less fortunate citizens from gaining the tools they need to work their way out of poverty and robs our state of their potential talents. In recent years, homelessness in New York State has reached levels equal to those seen during the Great Depression. Many New Yorkers cannot find affordable housing, have difficulty obtaining treatment for mental illness and addiction, and cannot access the skills training they need to fully participate in the workforce.
These things don't just make life difficult for millions of New Yorkers, they adversely affect the quality of life for everyone. It's time to invest in our future both by making smart spending decisions and by demanding more fairness in our tax system.
We millionaires and multi-millionaires of New York can easily invest more in the Empire State, and lawmakers like you have a moral and a fiduciary duty to make sure we do so.
To be clear, paying higher taxes will not affect our individual standards of living one bit. Most of us will literally not notice the difference.
And please, do not be fooled by silly arguments about high net worth New Yorkers fleeing the state in the wake of higher taxes. Since implementing the current "Millionaires Tax" in 2009, the number of millionaires in New York State has risen by 63%. In 2017 alone, New York City saw a 15% increase in individuals with over $30 million in wealth.
And frankly, if a few of New York's millionaires are too myopic to understand the importance of investing in our community, Connecticut can have them.
We want to be a part of building the next great chapter in New York. Please make sure we are.
Signed,
Sandra Baron
Marc Baum
Lawrence Benenson
Susan Berman
Roger Bernstein
Pierce Delahunt
Anne Delaney
Abigail Disney
Andrew Drews
Rick Feldman
Bob Fertik
Helen Freedman
Paul Gangsei
Linda Gottlieb
Nicholas Gottlieb
Michael Gottwald
Monica Graham
Cat Gund
Agnes Gund
Jeffrey Gural
Anne Hess
Idelle Howitt
Craig Kaplan
Robbie Kaplan
Kelsey Livingston
Stephanie Low
Barbara Lowenstein
Dennis Mehiel
Patricia Martone
Trudy Mason
Terry Meehan
Friedrike Merck
Paul Mersfelder
Keith Mestrich
Sally Minard
Michael Nash
Marilyn Nissenson
Sonja Noring
Morris Pearl
Barbara Pearl
Bob Pennoyer
Deborah Sale
Donna Schaper
Richard Schottenfeld
Daniel A. Simon
Daniel Solomon
Melissa Walker
Robin Willner
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
After NYT Sues Over Pentagon Policy, Press Advocates 'Urge Other News Outlets to Follow'
"The only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," said the head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Dec 04, 2025
Press freedom advocates on Thursday welcomed the New York Times' lawsuit over the US Department of Defense's "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, filed on the heels of the first briefing for what critics call the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps."
The newspaper and Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, one of several journalists who refused to sign the policy earlier this year, are suing the DOD—which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.
The plaintiffs are asking Judge Paul L. Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, to strike down provisions of the Pentagon policy that violate their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and warn that "if allowed to stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and 'healthy adversarial tension between the government, which may seek to keep its secrets' and 'the press, which may endeavor to' report them... and will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership."
The filing notably comes not only as the DOD celebrates that dozens of "independent journalists, bloggers, and social media influencers" who "are not associated with legacy media outlets, including print media such as newspapers and magazines, and broadcast media, such as cable television news," have joined the new Pentagon Press Corps in exchange for signing the controversial agreement, but also as Trump and Hegseth face mounting outrage over boat bombings that experts argue are "war crimes, murder, or both."
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said in a statement that "the Times stands with fellow news organizations across digital, print, and broadcast media, including many conservative outlets, in strongly opposing this unprecedented policy."
The paper has hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn. The Washington Post reported that "lawyers representing the Times said they discussed litigation with other news organizations but ultimately decided to proceed on their own. They said they would welcome other outlets filing their own lawsuits or amicus briefs in the Times' case."
While Parnell said in a statement that "we are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court," journalists and media advocacy groups are already signaling support for the newspaper—which is also battling a $15 billion defamation suit refiled by the president in October.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press vice president of policy Gabe Rottman said Thursday that "the Pentagon's press access policy is unlawful because it gives government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn't, something the First Amendment prohibits."
"The public needs independent journalism and the reporters who deliver it back in the Pentagon at a time of heightened scrutiny of the department's actions," he asserted. "We look forward to lending our voice in support of this suit."
The Pentagon Press Association said it was "encouraged by the New York Times' effort to step up and defend press freedom," while White House Correspondents' Association president Weijia Jiang declared that the WHCA "stands firmly" with the newspaper and described the suit as "a necessary and vital step to ensure journalists can do their jobs."
Clayton Weimers, executive director for Reporters Without Borders USA, said that "it's great to see the New York Times continue to proactively defend press freedom in the courts as well as on their pages. We all know by now that capitulation to Donald Trump's authoritarian impulses never works out, but fighting back will."
"This is the logical next step after the mass refusal of journalists to sign Secretary of Defense Hegseth's loyalty pledge," Weimers added. "Journalists must be able to cover the government critically and freely."
Pointing to television companies' recent settlements with the president, Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm said that "in an era where news networks seem to be caving to Trump's censorious tactics left and right, it's refreshing to see the New York Times leading by example and sticking up for the First Amendment in court."
"An attack on any journalist’s rights is an attack on all. And the only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," Timm continued. "We urge other news outlets to follow the Times' lead."
"These days, the government has countless platforms of its own to tell the public what it wants it to know. A free and independent press isn't needed for that," he noted. "The Constitution guarantees one anyway precisely because the public needs the information the government does not want it to know. The Pentagon's absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Experts Say Those Ordering and Carrying Out US Boat Strikes Should Be 'Prosecuted for Homicide'
“US military attacks on alleged drug traffickers at sea," said two human rights experts, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea."
Dec 04, 2025
Two United Nations rights experts warned that in numerous ways in recent weeks, the Trump administration's escalation toward Venezuela has violated international law—most recently when President Donald Trump said he had ordered the South American country's airspace closed following a military buildup in the Caribbean Sea.
But the two officials, independent expert on democratic and international order George Katrougalos and Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, reserved their strongest condemnation and warning to the US for the administration's repeated bombings of boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which have targeted at least 22 boats and killed 83 people since September as the White House has claimed without evidence it is combating drug traffickers.
The strikes, said Katrougalos and Saul, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea. Those involved in ordering and carrying out these extrajudicial killings must be investigated and prosecuted for homicide.”
Human rights advocates have warned for months that the strikes are extrajudicial killings. Trump has claimed the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela—even though the country is not significantly involved in drug trafficking—but Congress has not authorized any military action in the Caribbean.
Typically, the US has approached drug trafficking in the region as a criminal issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies intercepting boats suspected of carrying illegal substances, arresting those on board, and ensuring they receive due process in accordance with the Constitution.
The Trump administration instead has bombed the boats, with the first operation on September 2 recently the subject of particular concern due to reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order for military officers to "kill everybody" on board a vessel, leading a commander to direct a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
Hegseth and Trump have sought to shift responsibility for the second strike onto Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, the commander who oversaw the attack under Hegseth's orders. Bradley was scheduled to brief lawmakers Thursday on the incident.
The White House has maintained Bradley had the authority to kill the survivors of the strike and to carry out all the other bombings of boats, even as reporting on the identities of the victims has shown the US has killed civilians including an out-of-work bus driver and a fisherman, and the family of one Colombian man killed in a strike filed a formal complaint accusing Hegseth himself of murder.
The UN experts suggested that everyone involved in ordering the nearly two dozen boat strikes, from Trump and Hegseth to any of the service members who have helped carry out the operations, should be investigated for alleged murder.
After Hegseth defended the September 2 strike earlier this week, Saul emphasized in a social media post that contrary to the defense secretary's rhetoric about how the boat attacks are "protecting" Americans, he is carrying out "state murder of civilians in peacetime, like executing alleged drug traffickers on the streets of New York or DC."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a top military lawyer advised the White House against beginning the boat bombings weeks before the September 2 attack, saying they could expose service members involved in the strikes to legal challenges.
Katrougalos and Saul urged the administration to "refrain from actions that could further aggravate the situation and ensure that any measures taken fully comply with the UN Charter, the Chicago Convention, and relevant rules of customary international law."
They also emphasized that Trump had no authority to declare that Venezuela's airspace was closed last week—an action that many experts feared could portend imminent US strikes in the South American country.
“International law is clear: States have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory. Any measures that seek to regulate, restrict, or ‘close’ another state’s airspace are in blatant violation of the Chicago Convention,” said the experts. “Unilateral measures that interfere with a state’s territorial domain, including its airspace, risk fully undermining the stability of the region and are seriously undermining Venezuela’s economy."
Saul and Katrougalos further called on the White House not to repeat "the long history of external interventions in Latin America."
“Respect for sovereignty, nonintervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes," they said, "are essential to preserving international stability and preventing further deterioration of the situation.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Human Rights Group Warns US Gaza Plan Will Impose 'Unlawful Collective Imprisonment' of Palestinians as New Details Emerge
“The design of these proposed cities mirrors the historical model of ghettos,” said the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which said the US plans to cram 25,000 people into areas smaller than a square kilometer.
Dec 04, 2025
A prominent international human rights organization is warning that the United States' plan for postwar Gaza will impose "unlawful collective imprisonment" on the Palestinian civilians who have survived two years of genocide.
In November, several news outlets reported on the Trump administration's plan to carve Gaza in two: a so-called “green zone” controlled by Israel and a “red zone” controlled by the militant group Hamas.
The US would construct what it called “Alternative Safe Communities” for Palestinians to live in the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza, which is over half of the territory under the current "ceasefire" agreement.
The New York Times described these communities as "compounds" of 20,000 to 25,000 people, where Israeli officials reportedly argued they should not be allowed to leave.
The initial reporting raised fears that the US and Israel were constructing what would amount to a "concentration camp," where Palestinians would be forced to live in squalid conditions without freedom of movement.
On Wednesday, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor released new details on how Palestinians, currently facing mass displacement from their homes in the portion of the strip not occupied by Israel, would be corralled into the green zone under the US proposal.
The Geneva-based group issued a stark warning about the plan, which it said carried "grave risks, including the effective displacement of Palestinians from their homes and the transformation of large parts of Gaza into closed military zones under the direct control of the Israeli army."
“Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life."
Euro-Med's report explains that the transfer of Palestinians would be carried out using "various pressure tactics."
"This is done by creating a coercive environment in the red zone and making access to relative protection and basic services conditional on relocating to designated areas within the green zone, following extensive security screening and vetting," the report says. "This removes any genuine element of consent and places the process squarely within the scope of forced displacement prohibited under international humanitarian law."
It also provides new details on the conditions Palestinians would be subject to once they've arrived: "The plan includes the establishment of 'cities' of prefabricated container homes (caravans) in the green zone, each housing around 25,000 people within an area of no more than one square kilometer and enclosed by walls and checkpoints."
This means these Palestinian cantons would be over three times as densely populated as the Tel Aviv District, the most crowded in Israel, which has about 8,130 people per square kilometer.
"Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life," the report continues.
This is not the first proposal to use the promise of safety to lure Palestinians into an enclosed space without the right to leave.
Earlier this year, following US President Donald Trump's call for the people of Palestine to be forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz proposed the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced people.
Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”
Euro-Med said that the design laid out in the new US plan "mirrors the historical model of ghettos, in which colonial and racist regimes confined specific groups to sealed areas surrounded by walls and guard posts, with movement and resources controlled externally, as seen in Europe during World War II and in other colonial contexts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


