March, 17 2021, 12:00am EDT
Sanders and Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Combat Corporate Greed and End Outrageous CEO Pay
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) along with Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Wednesday introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act to take on corporate greed by raising taxes on companies that pay their top executives at least 50 times more than the pay of a median worker.
WASHINGTON
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) along with Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Wednesday introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act to take on corporate greed by raising taxes on companies that pay their top executives at least 50 times more than the pay of a median worker.
Americans across the political spectrum are outraged by the extreme gaps between CEO and worker pay. According to a nationwide survey, the typical American would limit CEO pay to no more than 6 times that of the average worker. About 62% of all Americans - 52% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats - favor capping CEO pay relative to worker pay.
"The American people understand that today we are moving toward an oligarchic form of society where the very rich are doing phenomenally well, and working families are struggling in a way that we have not seen since the Great Depression," said Sen. Sanders. "At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are demanding that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and treat their employees with the dignity and respect they deserve. That is what this legislation will begin to do."
"Corporate executives have padded their pockets with hefty paychecks and over-the-top compensation packages, while American workers, who helped generate record corporate profits, have hardly seen their wages budge," said Sen. Warren. "We need to take dramatic steps to address wealth inequality in this country and discouraging massive executive payouts is a good place to start."
"Something is fundamentally broken when we still debate a federal minimum wage but CEOs pay minimum taxes," said Sen. Markey. "CEOs are being paid hundreds of times more than their average worker, whose wages haven't changed in years. It is a national disgrace. I am proud to join Sen. Sanders to co-sponsor the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act. It is past time we reform our tax code in ways that ensure the wealthiest members of our society pay their fair share."
"Millionaire and billionaire CEOs at massive corporations are cashing in larger and larger paychecks while their workers' wages barely keep up with the rising cost of living," said Sen. Van Hollen. "This bill establishes incentives for corporations to narrow the obscene gaps between CEO compensation and employee pay. We must meaningfully address income inequality in our nation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this critical issue."
"It is unjust and unacceptable that for decades, billions of dollars have gone to those at the top while workers' wages, especially for workers of color, have remained stagnant," said Rep. Barbara Lee. "As millions of families struggle to keep food on the table during a global pandemic and economic crisis, it is more important than ever that we close the CEO-worker pay gap and ensure that companies pay their workers the wages they deserve. I'm proud to partner with Sen. Sanders to reintroduce the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act to make ultra-wealthy CEOs pay their fair share."
"Corporate greed is a disease that has long afflicted this country--but the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the gross income inequality and pay gap between CEOs and their employees in a way it never has been before," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib."Amid this crisis, Amazon's profits more than tripled as sales soared and its warehouse workers risked their lives to make that possible--without hazard pay. Enough is enough. Our neighbors cannot afford to continue to wait for CEOs to do the right thing. The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help ensure there is finally more fairness in the workplace when it comes to wages and I couldn't be prouder to join my colleagues in reintroducing it at a time when it is more important than ever."
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would impose tax rate increases on companies with CEO to median worker ratios above 50 to 1. If the CEO did not receive the largest paycheck in the firm, the ratio will be based on the highest-paid employee. The tax penalties would begin at 0.5 percentage points for companies that pay their top executives between 50 and 100 times more than their typical workers. The highest penalty would kick in for companies that pay top executives over 500 times worker pay.
These rates, if current corporate pay patterns continue, would raise around $150 billion over 10 years. If the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act had been in effect last year:
- Walmart would have paid up to $854.9 million more in taxes;
- Home Depot would have paid up to $550.8 million more in taxes;
- JPMorganChase would have paid up to $172.8 million more in taxes;
- Nike would have paid up to $147.7 million more in taxes.
- McDonald's would have paid up to $69.5 million more in taxes;
- American Airlines would have paid up to $22.6 million more in taxes.
If companies increased annual median worker pay to just $60,000 and reduced their CEO compensation to $3 million they would not owe any additional taxes under this plan.
Today, a typical restaurant employee at McDonald's would have to work for more than 2,000 years to earn what the company's CEO Chris Kempczinski was paid last year. A retail worker at Gap Inc. would have to work for more than 3,000 years to receive the annual compensation of Gap's former CEO Art Peck. Peck's pay was increased by 33 percent in 2018, even after he presided over years of declines in sales and stock prices.
In 2019, Walmart's CEO made 983 times more than the median Walmart worker making $22,484 that year. The pattern continued in 2019: Jamie Dimon at JPMorganChase made 393 times more than the median JPMorganChase worker's pay of $80,431; Home Depot's CEO made 481 times more than the median Home Depot pay of $22,652; Nike's CEO made 550 times more than the median Nike employee's pay of $25,386; and American Airlines' CEO made 189 times more than the median American Airlines pay of $61,143.
In the 1970s, the average middle-class American worker could raise a family and save for retirement with their pay. CEOs of successful U.S. corporations in the 1970s received about $1 million annually--roughly 20 to 30 times the average pay of their company's middle-class workers. At present, a CEO at a Fortune 500 firm receives about $20 million per year--200 to 300 times the average pay of a typical worker, according to research by the AFL-CIO.
The bill also requires the Treasury Department to issue regulations to prevent tax avoidance, including against companies that increase the use of contractors rather than employees. Pay-ratio data for privately held corporations would also be made public, just as publicly held corporations are required to make public under current law.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act is endorsed by 32 academic leaders and policy analysts, as well as the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, American Sustainable Business Council, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Campaign for America's Future, Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), Coalition on Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA), Consumer Action, Economic Policy Institute (EPI), Franciscan Action Network, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), MO Jobs with Justice, National Council of Churches, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Our Revolution, Patriotic Millionaires, People Demanding Action, People's Action, Public Citizen, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social Security Works, Strong Economy for All Coalition, The Other 98%, Take on Wall Street, United for a Fair Economy (UFE), United for Respect (UFR), and the Working Families Party.
The bill was cosponsored by Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-Ill.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), James P. McGovern (D-Mass.), Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), Steven Lynch (D-Mass.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.).
Read the bill summary here.
Read the legislative text here.
Read the FAQ here.
Read the letter of support by 32 academic leaders and policy analysts here.
Read the letter of support by 35 major economic justice organizations here.
LATEST NEWS
'Fighting for Our Lives': Youth Sue to Block Utah Fossil Fuel Permits
"Some days I can't even go outside because the air is so polluted," said one plaintiff. "I get headaches, feel dizzy when it’s too hot, and sometimes I can't even see down my own street because of smoke from wildfires."
Dec 01, 2025
Following the Utah Supreme Court's dismissal of a youth-led constitutional climate lawsuit earlier this year, 10 young Utahns on Monday launched a new case intended to block state permits for coal, gas, and oil development.
Backed by Our Children's Trust—a legal group behind various youth climate suits, including Juliana v. United States and Held v. State of Montana—the plaintiffs are suing the Utah Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining; the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; and the director of the latter, Mick Thomas, in state court.
"Plaintiffs bring this action to protect their fundamental rights to life, health, and safety that defendants are violating by permitting fossil fuel development, when doing so is harmful, unnecessary, and more expensive than clean, renewable forms of energy," says the complaint.
"Due to localized air and climate pollution caused by defendants' permitting activities, plaintiffs live in some of the worst air quality of any state in the nation and face climate disruptions, including elevated temperatures and deadly heatwaves, frequent and severe wildfires and smoke, exceptional drought, exacerbated medical conditions, and increased health risks," the filing continues.
"Defendants' fossil fuel permitting challenged here is unconstitutional because it harms the health and safety of plaintiffs, interferes with their healthy development, and takes years off of their lives," the document adds.
When the Utah Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the earlier lawsuit in March, Our Children's Trust called it a "partial win" because, as lead attorney Andrew Welle explained at the time, "the decision opens a clear path forward for continuing our challenge to the state's actions in promoting fossil fuel development."
🚨Ten Utah youth filed a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state for issuing fossil fuel permits that endanger their health, lives, and safety. Learn more: bit.ly/49LVqA0
[image or embed]
— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 4:07 PM
The lead plaintiff for both cases is Natalie Roberts, an 18-year-old who lives in Salt Lake City. In April, the American Lung Association's annual State of the Air report gave the state capital's metro area an "F" grade for both ground-level ozone (smog) and particle (soot) pollution.
"Both ozone and particle pollution can cause premature death and other serious health effects such as asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes, preterm births, and impaired cognitive functioning later in life. Particle pollution can also cause lung cancer," said Nick Torres, advocacy director for the American Lung Association, in a statement when the report was released.
"Unfortunately, too many people in the Salt Lake City metro area are living with unhealthy levels of ozone and particle pollution," Torres continued. "This air pollution is causing kids to have asthma attacks, making people who work outdoors sick and unable to work, and leading to low birth weight in babies. We urge Utah policymakers to take action to improve our air quality, and we are calling on everyone to support the incredibly important work of the US Environmental Protection Agency."
Roberts, in a Monday statement, shared her experiences with her city's polluted air and increasingly hot temperatures.
"Some days I can't even go outside because the air is so polluted," the teenager said. "I get headaches, feel dizzy when it's too hot, and sometimes I can't even see down my own street because of smoke from wildfires. I worry every day about my health, my future, and what kind of world I'll live in if the state keeps approving these fossil fuel permits. We're fighting for our lives and asking the court to protect us before it's too late."
The complaint details similar experiences by other plaintiffs. When 21-year-old Park City resident Sedona Murdock "is exposed to dangerous air quality, she experiences pain in her chest and lungs, difficulty breathing, and coughing, and it can trigger life-threatening asthma attacks," it says. "Sedona experiences stress and anxiety because of the harms to her health that she has already suffered."
Otis W. and Lev W., brothers from Salt Lake City who are respectively 16 and 13, "experience painful headaches from bad air quality and have often had days where their schools have not allowed them or their peers to go outside," according to the filing. "Increasingly intense rain events have resulted in flooding and water intrusion in Otis and Lev's home, threatening their shelter and presenting a risk of dangerous mold growth."
"Decreased snowfall, snowpack, precipitation, and warming temperatures are diminishing water sources that provide water for Otis and Lev's family and community, threatening their water security," the complaint says. "Several trees in Otis and Lev's yard that provided shade for their home have already died from increased heat and drought conditions, making their home hotter and increasing the dangers to them of rising temperatures and heatwaves."
The document also points out how the pair and other youth plaintiffs have had to alter or abandon beloved outdoor activities, from team sports such as soccer to camping, hiking, mountain biking, rafting, running, and skiing, because of the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
"The state cannot continue issuing fossil fuel permits that put children's lives and health in jeopardy," said Welle, the lead attorney. "This case is about holding Utah accountable to its constitutional obligations to protect youth from serious harm caused by air pollution, climate impacts, and unsafe fossil fuel development. The court now has what it says it needs to hear and decide this case and prevent further harm to these young people and ensure the state governs responsibly."
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Claims Trump 'Has the Authority to Kill' Survivors of Boat Strikes
One legal expert called the press secretary's remarks "painful" to watch and warned of "how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members."
Dec 01, 2025
While continuing to deny that the Pentagon chief ordered those carrying out the first known US military strike on an alleged drug-running boat to "kill everybody" on board, the top White House spokesperson on Monday reiterated the administration's position that President Donald Trump has the authority to take out anyone he deems a "narco-terrorist."
Rights advocates, legal scholars, American lawmakers, and leaders from other countries have condemned the boat bombings in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, which began on September 2, as murders, and rejected the Trump administration's argument to Congress that the strikes are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels.
A week after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that people on board survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. The Washington Post provided more details on Friday, including that Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley ordered a second strike on two survivors to fulfill US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's alleged directive to kill everyone.
CNN also spoke with an unnamed source who confirmed Hegseth's supposed edict—which the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, denied on Monday.
During Monday's press briefing, NBC News White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez noted Trump's "confidence" in Hegseth's claim that he did not give an explicit order to kill everyone on the first vessel, and asked Leavitt, "Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?"
"The latter is true," Leavitt said. She then read a statement that she often referred back to throughout the briefing:
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
"And I would just add one more point," Leavitt continued, "to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place: Because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as a foreign terrorist organizations, the president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate—which is what they are doing."
Asked by Gutierrez to confirm Bradley ordered the second strike, Leavitt did so, saying that "he was well within his right to do so."
Multiple other reporters also inquired about the recent reporting, including Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, who said: "You said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?"
Leavitt responded: "The strike conducted on September 2 was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict."
Noting that exchange on social media, former Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said: "This is not how self-defense works. Everyone understands that self-defense requires an immediate physical threat and proportionality. Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not. This isn't complicated."
"This is not how self-defense works... Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not.
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who's now a New York University law professor and Just Security coeditor-in-chief, also weighed in. "This has got to be one of [the] most painful responses to watch," he said, also pointing out that "the 'law' Leavitt cites is utterly irrelevant (self-defense is non sequitur, it's not armed conflict, and 'no survivors' is a crime)."
"Part of the pain in watching that response is knowing how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members," Goodman added, referring to a new Just Security essay by Mark P. Nevitt, a retired judge advocate general who is now an associate law professor at Emory University.
Notably, Trump suggested last month that Democratic members of Congress who previously served in the US military and intelligence service and recently warned service members of their duty not to comply with illegal orders should be hanged. The Pentagon has since threatened to court-martial one of them: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain.
c by CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang about Hegseth's reported spoken directive to kill everybody on the boat. Using Trump's preferred term for the Defense Department's leader, she said: "I saw that quoted in a Washington Post story. I would reject that the secretary of war ever said that. However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists... are trafficking illegal drugs toward the United States, he has the authority to kill them, and that's what this administration is doing."
According to a CNN timeline, from September 2 to November 15, at least 22 US boat strikes killed 83 people and left two survivors who were initially taken onto a warship but ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador.
So far, Congress has failed to advance war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump's boat-bombing spree. However, since the Post reporting, top Democrats on both the US House and Senate Armed Services Committees have promised vigorous oversight.
Following Leavitt's remarks on Monday, the New Republic's Greg Sargent said that "it's doubly relevant that Adm. Bradley is in talks about briefing the House Armed Services Committee," and pointed to his new interview with Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the panel's ranking member.
The congressman told Sargent he will pressure GOP members of the committee, including Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), to "use whatever leverage is available to us to try to get answers," including subpoenaing top civilian and military officials.
Smith also discussed the reporting during a weekend appearance on MS NOW. Posting a clip of it on social media Monday, he declared that "Americans want to live in a constitutional republic, not an authoritarian dictatorship."
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber's floor Monday that "I don’t think we have ever seen someone so unserious, so childish, so obviously insecure serving as secretary of defense as Pete Hegseth—and that should alarm every single one of us."
Schumer called on Hegseth to release the tapes "that would show exactly what happened during these military strikes," and to "come before the Congress to testify under oath about the nature of his order, the evidence supporting the strikes, and an explanation for what the goals are in Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Over 150 Religious Orgs Endorse Salvadoran Mining Ban Reversed by Bukele
A joint letter expresses "steadfast support for the people of El Salvador and their religious institutions and leaders who are struggling to maintain their country’s historic ban on metal mining... so all Salvadorans can enjoy their God-given right to clean water."
Dec 01, 2025
More than 150 faith-based organizations from 25 countries launched an open letter on Monday supporting an El Salvadoran ban on metals mining that was overturned by right-wing President Nayib Bukele in 2024.
The original ban was passed by the country’s legislature in 2017 following years of study and the advocacy of El Salvador’s religious communities. The letter signatories, which include 153 global and regional groups from a wide range of traditions, stood with faith groups in El Salvador in calling both for no new mining and for an end to the political persecution of land and water defenders.
"We, the undersigned, from a diversity of church structures (representing local, regional, and national expressions of churches and related agencies), express our steadfast support for the people of El Salvador and their religious institutions and leaders who are struggling to maintain their country’s historic ban on metal mining—in place from 2017 to 2024—so all Salvadorans can enjoy their God-given right to clean water," the letter begins. "We stand in solidarity with civic and religious leaders who are being persecuted and imprisoned for working against injustices, including the devastation that metals mining would cause their communities."
The faith leaders also released a video reading sections of the letter aloud.
“This letter is a hope-filled expression of solidarity and humanism."
“Through this declaration, faith communities from around the world have affirmed their solidarity with faith leaders in El Salvador as they carry out their duty to protect water as a sacred inherited trust, a human right meant to be shared by all,” Rev. Dr. Japhet Ndhlovu, executive minister for the Church in the Mission Unit of The United Church of Canada, said in a statement.
El Salvadorans already struggle to gain access to clean and plentiful water. The water of 90% of Salvadorans is contaminated, half of all Salvadorans have "intermittent access to water,” and one-half of those with water access report it is poor quality, said Gordon Whitman, managing director for international organizing at letter-signatory Faith in Action, at a Monday press briefing anouncing the letter.
"Restarting mining would be catastrophic," Whitman said.
The mining ban was already hard won.
A 2012 study commissioned by the government affirmed that mining would endanger the nation’s rivers and watersheds with cyanide, arsenic, and other toxins and found widespread public opposition to mining. Before the ban was passed in March of 2017, the archbishop of San Salvador mobilized support for it by leading a march to deliver a draft of the ban to the National Assembly. After it passed unanimously, he called it a "miracle," according to John Cavanagh, a senior adviser at the Institute for Policy Studies.
The law made El Salvador "the first nation on Earth to ban mining to save its rivers," Cavanagh said at the press briefing.
“The Salvadoran precautionary approach banning metal mining is essential to protect drinking water and aquatic ecosystems, given the irreparable damage that has been done by irresponsible mining around the world,” Willamette University professor emeritus Susan Lea Smith of the Ecumenical Water Network of the World Council of Churches said in a statement. “El Salvador had made a difficult but wise choice in banning metal mining. Clean water is a gift from God, and so, for the sake of clean water and the rest of Creation, we work together for the common good."
"It is a sin to render water undrinkable.”
However, in December 2024, Bukele's government passed a new law that allows mining once again without environmental oversight or community consultation.
“It’s a law that has become one of the main threats for the Salvadorans' right to clean water," Pedro Cabezas of International Allies Against Mining in El Salvador said in the press conference.
Cabezas also said the new law was a "symptom of what El Salvador has been going through over the last five years” as Bukele concentrates all power within the executive and his own party.
While the Salvadoran public and civil society groups remain opposed to mining—a December 2024 poll found that 3 in 5 are against the practice in the country—the Bukele government has ramped up its criminalization of dissent.
In this context, the Catholic, protestant, and evangelical churches in El Salvador are among the remaining institutions "with space to speak out" against mining, Christie Neufeldt of the United Church of Canada explained at the briefing.
For example, in March, Mons. José Luis Escobar Alas, the archbishop of San Salvador, presented an anti-mining petition signed by 150,000 people.
International faith groups wanted to stand in solidarity with their Salvadoran counterparts.
“This letter is a hope-filled expression of solidarity and humanism in the face of forces that would degrade” the Earth, human rights, and democracy, Neufeldt said.
Salvadoran faith groups "remind us that access to water is a fundamental human right and that clean water is not a commodity, but a shared inheritance entrusted to all people by God. And they remind us that ending the mining ban is fueling egregious rights violations against those organizing to protect their water and land from destruction," the letter says.
Whitman spoke about the importance of water to several religious traditions.
“All of our faith traditions teach that water is a sacred gift of God,” Whitman said, adding, "It is a sin to render water undrinkable.”
In the press briefing, speakers acknowledged the link between rising authoritarianism and environmental deregulation, in El Salvador and beyond.
Cavanagh noted that, as the energy transition increases demand for rare earth minerals and global instability makes gold more attractive, "oligarchs linked to extractivism" have begun "pumping money into elections” to boost candidates who will allow them to exploit resources.
“It’s not at all surprising that the opposition to mining comes from the people, and so it’s absolutely natural that the oligarchs, that the transnational corporations are going to want to crack down on public dissent," Smith said, adding there was an "intimate connection between authoritarianism and any extractive industry, including mining."
In the end, however, the letter signatories expressed faith for a greener, freer future.
"We pray for the Salvadoran people and their government, that they protect the sacred gift of creation, uphold human rights, and ensure every family clean water—now and for generations to come," they concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular