March, 25 2021, 12:00am EDT

Sanders and Colleagues Introduce Legislation to End Rigged Tax Code as Inequality Increases
In a continued effort to combat rising economic inequality, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced two pieces of legislation to end our rigged tax code and ensure the wealthiest people and largest corporations pay their fair share - the For the 99.5% Act and the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act.
WASHINGTON
In a continued effort to combat rising economic inequality, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced two pieces of legislation to end our rigged tax code and ensure the wealthiest people and largest corporations pay their fair share - the For the 99.5% Act and the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act.
Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) are joining Sen. Sanders as original cosponsors of the For the 99.5% Act in the Senate, which has garnered the support of over 50 national organizations. In the House, the companion estate tax legislation will be introduced by Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), while Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) will introduce the bill on offshore corporate tax dodging.
The For the 99.5% Act is a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.5 percent of Americans, while the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act will eliminate tax breaks and loopholes that encourage corporations to shift jobs and profits offshore. This comes a week after the reintroduction of the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, and ahead of today's 11:00 a.m. Senate Budget Committee hearing on "Ending a Rigged Tax Code: The Need to Make the Wealthiest People and Largest Corporations Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes."
"Unbelievably, the United States today has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth," said Sen. Sanders. "This inequality has only deepened with the economic crisis brought on by COVID and by a tax system that allows for billionaires to pay less in taxes than working people across the country. From a moral, economic, and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little. We need a tax system which demands the billionaire class pay its fair share of taxes and which reduces the obscene level of wealth inequality in America."
"As everyday New Yorkers struggle to put food on the table, and keep a steady check in their bank accounts, it's time the uber wealthy pay their fair share to get New York, and our country, on a sustainable path towards recovery," said Senator Gillibrand. "I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the For the 99.5% Act, a common-sense piece of legislation to make sure Congress is doing everything possible to assist struggling Americans across the country."
"The wealthiest Americans ought to pay their fair share when they receive big inheritances," said Sen. Whitehouse. "We need a tax system that's fair, simple, and doesn't let the ultra-rich avoid this responsibility of citizenship."
"We need an economy that works for all Americans, not just the wealthiest few," said Sen. Van Hollen. "With inequality skyrocketing and the pandemic making it harder and harder for folks to find work, it's critical that we implement policies that will put everyday people first. This legislation will ensure America's billionaire heirs contribute more to support national investments that will benefit all Americans and build a more inclusive economy with more shared prosperity."
"The tax system needs plenty of changes to restore confidence and fairness," said Sen. Reed. "This bill sends a strong signal that tax avoidance damages our democracy. It offers a simple, targeted solution that will restore fairness to the tax code by closing inheritance tax loopholes and ensuring working people aren't paying higher tax rates than the very wealthiest."
"The expansion of the estate tax represents one of our country's most effective tools in rebuilding our economy to work for all Americans," said Rep. Jimmy Gomez. "For far too long, ultra-rich families have used our tax code to acquire mass amounts of wealth as working Americans, especially those of color, have fallen further behind. The For the 99.5% Act - which I'll soon be introducing in the House of Representatives - would substantively strengthen the estate tax and help restore fairness and equity to our nation's tax code. I'd like to thank Senator Bernie Sanders for partnering with me in our joint efforts to uplift America's working class and help provide them with new opportunities to thrive and support their families."
"For decades, Americans have been told that trickle-down economics would lead to shared prosperity," said Rep. Schakowsky. "That didn't materialize, and we have seen the middle class hollowed out, and the bottom fall out on the working poor. The American Rescue Plan represented a sea change after years of misguided policies, and the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act is the next logical step towards the Federal government putting the American people ahead of billionaires and transnational corporations. I thank Senator Sanders for devoting his career to tackling income inequality, and am proud to partner with him on this important measure."
"America's estate and gift tax system is the most loophole-ridden part of our tax law," said Frank Clemente, Executive Director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "With the help of an army of highly paid advisors, America's ultra-wealthy pay tax on only a fraction of their wealth or avoid tax entirely. The billions in taxes they dodge each year costs the rest of us better schools, affordable health care, and other critical services. The For the 99.5% Act closes the gaping loopholes in current law and will check the horrific concentration of wealth in the hands of billionaires."
"Sen. Sanders' legislation drills down on a core problem in America's international tax system: the ease with which U.S. multinational companies exploit offshore tax havens to dodge taxes they would otherwise be required to pay," said Ian Gary, Executive Director of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition. "There is an unprecedented momentum in the U.S. and among our international allies to advance reforms like the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act to strip tax incentives for corporations to move profits - along with real jobs and operations - overseas. This legislation would put small and wholly domestic businesses on a fairer footing to compete with U.S. multinational enterprises."
More than a century ago, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt fought for the creation of a progressive estate tax to reduce the enormous concentration of wealth that existed during the Gilded Age. Roosevelt's efforts are even more relevant in today's America where the billionaire class pays a lower effective tax rate than the working class.
The For the 99.5% Act establishes a new progressive estate tax rate structure on the top 0.5% of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million in wealth. This bill also includes ending tax breaks for dynasty trusts; closing other loopholes in the estate and gift tax; and providing protections for family farmers by allowing them to lower the value of their farmland by up to $3 million for estate tax purposes.
Ninety-nine and a half percent of Americans would not owe a penny more in taxes under this bill, but the families of all 657 billionaires in America - who have a combined net worth of over $4.2 trillion - would owe up to $2.7 trillion in estate tax. Specifically, this legislation would impose a 45% tax rate on estates worth $3.5 million and a 65% tax rate on the value of an estate worth over $1 billion.
This is not a radical idea. In fact, from 1941-1976, the top estate tax rate was 77% on estates worth more than $50 million. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill would raise $430 billion through 2031.
Under this bill:
- The Walton family, the owners of Walmart, worth would pay up to $85.8 billion more in taxes on their $221.5 billion fortune.
- The family of Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, would pay up to $44.4 billion more in taxes on his $178 billion fortune.
- The family of Elon Musk would pay up to $40.4 billion more in taxes on his $162 billion fortune.
- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's family would pay up to $25.3 billion more in taxes on his $101.7 billion fortune.
The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act would raise over $2.3 trillion in revenue by preventing corporations from shifting their profits offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It would also restore the top corporate tax rate to 35% - where it was before Trump became president.
Today, corporations are paying as little as nothing on profits they claimed to make overseas. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is the "home" to about 20,000 corporations.
A year after Trump's Republican tax bill was signed into law, over 90 Fortune 500 companies not only paid nothing in federal income taxes, they actually received billions of dollars in tax rebate checks from the IRS. For example, in 2018:
- Amazon received a $129 million check from the IRS after making $10.8 billion in profits.
- Delta received a $187 million check from the IRS after making $5.1 billion in profits.
- Chevron received a $181 million check from the IRS after making $4.5 billion in profits.
This would change under the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act as it stops corporations from sheltering profits in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and would end rewards for companies that ship jobs and factories overseas with tax breaks. Additionally, this bill would reform the tax code by:
- Ending the rule allowing American corporations to pay a lower or zero percent tax rate on offshore earnings compared to domestic income;
- Closing loopholes allowing American corporations to shift income between foreign countries to avoid U.S. taxes;
- Repealing the "check-the-box" and "CFC Look-Thru" offshore loopholes;
- Preventing multinational corporations from stripping earnings out of the U.S. by manipulating debt expenses; and
- Preventing American corporations from claiming to be foreign by using a tax haven post office box as their address.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, just the offshore loophole closing portions of this bill would raise over $1 trillion billion through 2031.
The For the 99.5% Act
* Read the bill, here.
* Read the bill summary, here.
* Read the JCT score of the bill, here.
* Read the letter of support of over 50 national organizations, here.
The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act
* Read the bill, here.
* Read the bill summary, here.
* Read JCT score of the offshore portion of the bill, here.
LATEST NEWS
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


