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
amy hanauer
Tax the Rich Men North and South of Richmond—and Join a Union Too
We could better tax the rich men near and far from Richmond by getting rid of the special low tax rate on capital gains income and making it the same as taxes on work.
Sep 10, 2023
Oliver Anthony’s smash country hit “Rich Men North of Richmond” has gone through an entire story arc in just a few weeks. When conservatives heard the song’s anger, apparent ire toward northerners, and lyrics punching down at people on welfare, some lauded it as an anthem for our times — helping send it to the top of the Billboard charts, and inspiring Fox News to reference it in the first question at last week’s Republican presidential debate.
But Anthony changed the narrative late last week by saying: “It was funny seeing my song at the presidential debate ’cause it’s like, I wrote that song about those people.” He also tweeted “I. Don’t. Support. Either. Side. Politically. Not the left, not the right. I’m about supporting people and restoring local communities.”
Fair enough. Let’s leave the song, particularly the parts about welfare and obesity, behind. But lines like “I’ve been sellin’ my soul, workin’ all day, overtime hours for bullshit pay” and “your dollar ain’t shit and it’s taxed to no end ’cause of rich men north of Richmond” strike a truthful chord. For those of us at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy who examine tax policy through the lens of how much working (and poor) people are taxed compared to rich men north (and south) of Richmond, it’s hard not to take this as a jumping off point to amplify some important facts.
Oliver Anthony - Rich Men North Of Richmondwww.youtube.com
In Virginia, where Anthony is from, middle-class, working-class and poor families all pay a larger share of their income in state and local taxes than households in Virginia’s top 1 percent. That’s because the state relies more on sales taxes, which poor and working families disproportionately shoulder, and less on income taxes that better target the rich. Virginia lawmakers also let multinational corporations stash their earnings in tax havens to avoid state taxes, something local businesses can’t get away with. The tax laws in most other states create the same problems.
There is a better way. While Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently pushed for more high-income and business tax cuts, some Virginians are trying to increase what the wealthiest pay and redirect resources toward families with children. And some states, like Minnesota, already have a system that does more for kids and communities by taxing rich people and corporations.
I’ll admit I’ve been humming lines from Oliver’s song, but what sticks in my head more is the response from labor balladeer Billy Bragg, who’s been refining his political and economic views for decades.
Nationwide, income from wealth gets a special lower tax rate, so someone whose money comes from their big investment portfolio pays less than someone who earns the same amount by working. And don’t get me started on the breaks available to the uber-rich, whose stock portfolios balloon until they pass them on to their children without anyone ever paying anything on the increase. Finally, wealthy corporations often dodge federal taxes — in 2020, we found that 55 of the nation’s most profitable corporations paid zero in federal income taxes.
We could better tax the rich men near and far from Richmond by getting rid of the special low tax rate on capital gains income and making it the same as taxes on work; by cracking down on tax avoidance by multinational corporations; and by turning state tax codes right side up, replacing sales taxes with new income tax brackets for earnings over $150,000, over $250,000, and over $1 million. This would generate the money needed to deliver more for working families — from child care, to health care, to affordable college. And it would raise that money from those who derive the most benefit from capitalism.
I’ll admit I’ve been humming lines from Oliver’s song, but what sticks in my head more is the response from labor balladeer Billy Bragg, who’s been refining his political and economic views for decades. Bragg’s new song, “Rich Men Earning North of a Million,” taps proud musical traditions that give voice to economic hardship, from spirituals to the blues, bluegrass, country, rock and hip-hop.
Billy Bragg - Rich Men Earning North of a Millionwww.youtube.com
I’ve added Bragg’s newest to my playlist. And my hunch is that Anthony wouldn’t like me citing his song any more than he liked the Republicans doing so. But I can’t ignore the anger of someone working for “bullshit” pay who is pissed off at the power that rich men have in our political system and in our tax code. I’ll take the sentiments from both musical voices to honor working class narratives, channel feelings of disempowerment, and push for a more economically just country. Starting with better taxing rich men, wherever they live.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Ron Johnson Argues Against Rich Paying Fair Share to Ensure Social Security's Survival
The Wisconsin Republican millionaire accused working-class Americans of "getting a lot more in return" from the key social program than rich people who pay disproportionately less into its coffers.
Jul 12, 2023
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson came under fire Wednesday after the multimillionaire Wisconsin Republican asserted during a Senate hearing that Social Security—an economic lifeline for tens of millions of Americans who paid into the system throughout their working lives—unfairly takes from wealthier people to support lower-income retirees.
Speaking during the Senate Budget Committee hearing—entitled Protecting Social Security for All: Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share—Johnson said that his Wisconsin constituents "have a basic misconception about Social Security."
Johnson—one of the wealthiest U.S. senators, according to the watchdog OpenSecrets—derided Social Security, a key New Deal program, as a "nanny state" scheme enacted because the government doesn't trust Americans to save for retirement on their own.
"Most people think, 'Well, that's my money,' and, in fact, part of it is," the senator continued. "If you're in a low-income group, you're getting a lot more in return than you invested in... If you're in the high-income, you're not getting what you paid in."
Patient advocate and cancer survivor Peter Morley tweeted Wednesday that "Sen. Ron Johnson is a LIAR and it was clear from today's hearing that he is a defender of the rich and not for the people!"
Johnson previously called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in one of many attacks on the program upon which around 66 million Americans rely.
Further arguing during Wednesday's hearing that Social Security was not meant to be a "general welfare system," Johnson turned to Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) executive director Amy Hanauer—who testified that "our tax system raises far too little from those with the most"—to ask what he called "a very simple question."
"Out of every $1 of income that any American makes," he queried, "how much should be the maximum amount the government takes out in total?"
"I think we should think about the kind of country we want to have," Hanauer began to reply before Johnson interrupted her to demand an answer as "a percent."
"You know, we had 400 billionaires who paid less than an 8% tax rate, so more than that," she asserted. "It strikes me that in a society where the wealthiest are getting more and more of our income, they can afford to chip in more to maintain the systems that enabled them to build that wealth in the first place."
Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) followed Hanauer's response by opining that "it would make a very big difference to me in how much should be taxed on a dollar of income whether it was the first dollar of income of an individual or their billionth dollar of income."
On Tuesday, the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary published an analysis showing how Democrats' Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act could extend the social programs' solvency for generations by increasing taxes on incomes over $400,000.
Another bill introduced earlier this year by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) would boost monthly Social Security benefits by at least $200, prolonging the program's solvency for decades by lifting the cap on the maximum income subject to Social Security payroll tax.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has announced the creation of a fiscal commission tasked with finding ways to reduce the national debt, warning last month that he was "going to make some people uncomfortable" by looking at cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular