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
gabriel zucman
'Obscene': Billionaire Funders Allowed California Wealth Tax Foes to Outspend Proponents 250 to 1
"California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Nov 03, 2026
Foes of a California ballot initiative to establish a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state's billionaires have spent vastly more on advertising than proponents—and polls show that money may be having an impact.
A Monday report in The Washington Post estimated that opponents of California’s Proposition 40, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent 250 times more than those in favor of the tax.
In total, the Post found, tax opponents have raised more than $379 million to fight the wealth tax, while proponents of the initiative have raised just $35 million.
The spending disparity in advertising is even greater, as tax opponents have spent $148 million on ads, while proponents have spent a mere $572,000.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been leading the charge against the measure, having donated more than $100 million to ensure its defeat.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Kleiner Perkins chairman John Doerr, meanwhile, have both chipped in $40 million each to help defeat the proposal.
The spending blitz comes as polling has shown a steady erosion of support for Proposition 40.
As noted by Gizmodo on Monday, two recent surveys—one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another from the University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies—show that opposition to the measure now outpaces support. For several months prior, polls showed a majority of California voters in favor of the wealth tax.
David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, told the Post that opponents of the tax appear to have held their fire until late in the campaign, when most voters have traditionally started to really pay attention to ballot initiatives.
"The strategy has been to blanket the airwaves in weeks three and four," McCuan said, "and carpet-bomb the airwaves in the last two weeks."
McCuan also estimated that the battle over Proposition 40 "will be the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the world."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) decried the billionaire campaign to defeat the tax in a Monday social media post.
"Oligarchs in California spent $379 million against Prop 40, a 5% billionaire wealth tax, outraising supporters 250-1," Sanders wrote. "They’d rather poor kids die than pay a little more in taxes. Obscene. California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale. Vote for Prop 40."
Economist Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview with NPR published Monday that the wealth tax in California was part of a broader fight to take away power from the ultrarich, who have seen their wealth grow by leaps and bounds over the last several decades.
"If California says, 'We can tax billionaires. We can tax the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world,'" Zucman explained, "it will be the beginning of not only a broader US-wide movement, ultimately paving the way for a federal wealth tax—but I think it will be the beginning of an international movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Huge,' Economist Says as Filing Shows Zuckerberg Getting Ready to Pay CA Billionaire Tax
"This SEC filing is proof that the campaign for Proposition 40 is working," said Gabriel Zucman. "We are at a turning point."
Oct 22, 2026
Federal filings released Wednesday reveal how Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, one of the richest men in the world, is getting ready to potentially pay a billionaire wealth tax that is on California's November midterm ballot—an indication of the grassroots campaign's impact.
"This is huge," economist Gabriel Zucman, an outspoken supporter of the proposed tax, wrote on social media in response to Meta's new filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. "We are witnessing a global turning point unfold before our eyes."
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the filing discloses the outcome of tense, months-long negotiations between Zuckerberg and Meta's board. Meta is headquartered in California, and Zuckerberg lives in a sprawling compound in Palo Alto.
According to the Times, Zuckerberg threatened to sell his home and leave California if board members didn't agree to a deal that would allow him to sell shares to cover his possible tax bill without relinquishing any control of Meta.
"On Wednesday, the company unveiled the result: In January, it will issue a new class of stock to shareholders, which Mr. Zuckerberg can sell to pay the potential wealth tax without cutting into his 60.6% voting power at the Silicon Valley firm," the Times reported. "Mr. Zuckerberg’s decision to preemptively restructure his stock holdings shows how fearful Silicon Valley is that the tax measure, Proposition 40, might pass in the midterm election on November 3."
WOW. New SEC filing: Zuckerberg is preparing to pay California’s billionaire tax, AND has signed an agreement to stay in the state for 8 years.Two myths down: no, billionaires won’t all flee, and yes, they can pay their fair share without losing their companies.Just 12 days left to win this! Holy shit this could be historic.
— Rutger Bregman (@rutgerbregman) October 22, 2026
If California voters approve Proposition 40 and defeat competing initiatives that would cancel it out, billionaires living in California as of January 1, 2026 would face 5% tax on their wealth, which they could pay all at once or over a five-year period.
The tax would raise an estimated $100 billion in revenue, funds that would help offset federal Medicaid cuts and fund California's education system. Prominent billionaires, led by Google cofounder Sergey Brin, have spent aggressively against the proposed tax, but Zuckerberg is not known to have donated to the opposition efforts.
Zucman, a world-renowned expert on inequality, noted that Meta's CEO would face a roughly $10 billion tax bill under Proposition 40. Zucman has argued the tax could serve as a model for broader efforts to rein in wealth inequality.
"Until now, Mark Zuckerberg has paid very little in taxes relative to the staggering growth of his fortune," the economist wrote on Wednesday. "Proposition 40—the California billionaire tax—would change that."
"This SEC filing is proof that the campaign for Proposition 40 is working," Zucman added. "Mark Zuckerberg is preparing to pay the wealth tax if California voters decide to approve Prop 40. Voting is already underway, and it ends in just 12 days. We are at a turning point. California is closer than ever to enacting the first billionaire wealth tax in history. This is a historic moment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tax the Rich! We Intend to Confront the Billionaires Face-to-Face
Will powerful banks, corporations, and the ultrarich double down on authoritarianism and runaway inequality? Or will they recognize that America works best when it works for all of us not just the wealthy few?
Oct 21, 2026
At a time of great crisis for American democracy, when oligarchy, authoritarianism and billionaire corruption have run rampant, there are a few signs of hope.
Thousands of business leaders nationwide are signing the Business for Democracy Pledge, calling on our federal government to ensure free and fair elections and seating of newly-elected lawmakers without interference or violence.
Groups like the Center for Popular Democracy and May Day Strong are calling on businesses large and small to sign the pledge.
We will never agree with everything that banks and bankers say and do. But we’ll be in New York City today to demand that they do the right thing...
Renowned economist and educator Gabriel Zucman and his colleagues have issued a groundbreaking call for a worldwide minimum 2% wealth tax on billionaires to address pressing human needs and reduce extreme inequality and oligarchy.
Unions and organizing groups are pushing for state billionaire taxes in California, Illinois and New York, while working to elect members of Congress who will pass a federal law in the United States.
Now it’s time for corporations and billionaires to decide where they stand.
It’s not enough for the ultra-rich to merely fund charitable causes. That doesn't cut it when the political and economic systems they’ve created leave millions of Americans struggling to afford healthcare, put food on the table, and keep their families together.
It’s time for something new.
There’s a real opportunity for these powerful institutions to use their influence differently.
And growing public pressure, all across the country and all around the world, is making it harder for corporations and billionaires to remain on the sidelines.
Will they double down on authoritarianism and runaway inequality?
Or will they recognize that America works best when it works for all of us, when democracy functions fairly, when our voices are heard and counted, when our government builds prosperity for all rather than the fortunes for a few.
Tech billionaires like Elon Musk and hedge fund managers like Ken Griffin have made their positions clear, with hundreds of millions in campaign cash to Trump’s MAGA Republicans and attacks on efforts to fairly tax wealth in California and New York.
In New York City today, JP Morgan Chase and the Robin Hood Foundation are bringing nine billionaires, the head of public policy at Meta, and President Donald Trump’s handpicked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to their annual “investors conference” —and we will be there to confront them.
We will demand that JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon and the billionaire fund managers associated with the Robin Hood Foundation stand for democracy and fairness.
These leaders should reject the path to more authoritarianism and more government corruption.
They should all sign the Business for Democracy pledge, and they should all agree to support fair and progressive tax policies to reduce extreme inequality and prevent oligarchy.
There’s reason to hope that they will.
Dimon has opposed Trump before, resigning from Trump’s business council after Charlottesville, closing Trump’s accounts after the January 6 coup attempt, and speaking out against Trump on tariffs and on the independence of the Federal Reserve.
And Robin Hood donors have supported poverty-fighting policies and organizations opposed by Trump and MAGA Republicans, demonstrating some understanding of solidarity and the common good.
We will never agree with everything that banks and bankers say and do. Today, we’ll be in New York City to demand that they do the right thing—we call on all New Yorkers to join us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Economist Says Elon Musk Needs to 'Pay More Taxes,' Not Just Donate SpaceX Shares
"The American people don’t need billionaires making grand promises of generosity," said University of California, Berkeley professor Gabriel Zucman. "They need billionaires to pay their fair share."
Oct 20, 2026
A world-renowned economist said Monday that Elon Musk's pledge to donate a share of his company, SpaceX, to every American child is not nearly enough to redress the exploding wealth inequality that he personifies.
Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a leading inequality expert, wrote in a series of social media posts directed at Musk that "if you really want to help the American people, I have a better suggestion than charity: pay more taxes."
"You, like your fellow billionaires, pay a lower effective tax rate than the average American," Zucman wrote, pointing to his research on the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans.
Zucman and his colleagues estimated in a 2025 paper that the total effective tax rate of the 400 wealthiest US households "averaged 24% in 2018–2020 compared with 30% for the full population and 45% for top labor income earners."
Based on available data and tax records obtained by ProPublica, Musk's effective tax rate has been far lower than average. Between 2014 and 2018, Musk—whose wealth is mostly tied up in stock that is only taxed when it is sold—paid an effective federal rate of 3.27%.
"The American people don’t need billionaires making grand promises of generosity," wrote Zucman. "They need billionaires to pay their fair share. All of them. Each year. How is it acceptable that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the average American? The most effective way to do is with a billionaire wealth tax."
Billionaires’s extremely low tax rates are fueling oligarchic power in the United States.Look at the wealth held by the richest billionaires relative to what’s produced in a given year in the US—a good measure of the influence their wealth can buy. The economic weight of extreme wealth now far exceeds its Gilded Age peak.
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) October 19, 2026
Musk, whose net worth briefly surpassed $1 trillion earlier this year following SpaceX's debut on the public market, pledged to distribute a share of the company to every American child. Based on the company's current stock price, the donation would be worth around $11 billion—a tiny percentage of Musk's total wealth.
"Giving 1% is better than giving 0%, and I applaud that," Zucman wrote in his social media thread on Monday. "But Americans don’t need charity, as in 19th Century Britain. They need everybody to contribute through the tax system, in proportion to their ability to pay."
Zucman expressed support for the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act, legislation introduced earlier this year by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The bill would impose a 5% annual wealth tax on US billionaires, whose combined net worth surged past $9 trillion over the summer.
"This would still be small relative to your wealth," Zucman said of the tax, "and yet would generate more than $4.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade. That would make a real difference to the lives of the American people. Owning one share in SpaceX won’t."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The World Is Watching': Top Economist Rips Newsom for Working to Tank Billionaire Wealth Tax
"You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health," said Gabriel Zucman.
Jun 22, 2026
A world-renowned economist and expert on wealth inequality castigated California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday for working to kill a proposed tax on billionaire fortunes in the Golden State, warning that the Democratic leader and likely 2028 candidate appears bent on handing President Donald Trump "an unexpected ideological and political victory."
Gabriel Zucman, a research professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, pointed to a recent Bloomberg story detailing Newsom's "last-ditch pressure campaign" to prevent a healthcare union-led initiative from appearing on California voters' ballots in November. Last week, organizers announced that they had collected the number of signatures required to get the initiative—a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires—on the ballot ahead of the June 25 deadline.
In a lengthy thread posted to X on Monday, Zucman wrote that he is "shocked" by Newsom's "efforts to defend Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg at the expense of Californians' health," referring to two of the state's most prominent billionaires. Thiel has donated millions to an industry group looking to defeat the ballot initiative, which would use revenue from the wealth tax to offset the impacts of federal Medicaid cuts approved last year by Trump and congressional Republicans.
"Yet you are now devoting all your energy to preventing this ballot initiative from taking place and denying Californians the opportunity to express their democratic will this November," Zucman wrote. "You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health."
By stridently opposing the proposed billionaire tax in California, the economist warned, Newsom is lending credence to "familiar conservative arguments against taxing great fortunes: the threat of capital flight, tax avoidance, harm to growth, etc."
"Instead of reinforcing these arguments, you could have chosen to challenge them. Take the risk of tax flight, a classic objection. It is effectively nonexistent," Zucman wrote. "Beyond the ideological victory you risk handing Trump, you may also be giving him a political victory."
Politically, Zucman warned Newsom that his opposition to the proposed wealth tax—which has proven extremely popular among likely Democratic voters—risks giving Trump and his right-wing allies a political victory by blunting momentum for a wealth tax not only in California, but beyond as well.
"If the 'Yes' prevails, California's tax could quickly inspire similar efforts in other states," Zucman argued. "Ultimately, that process could pave the way for a federal tax on extreme wealth. This is precisely what happened more than a century ago with the progressive income tax."
"The world is watching," the economist added. "In the struggle between democracy and oligarchy, one must choose a side. I hope you will choose ours."
Zucman has been outspoken in support of the proposed wealth tax in California, writing in The New York Times' op-ed pages last month alongside fellow economist Emmanuel Saez that the proposed levy would "be tiny relative to billionaires’ recent wealth gains."
"In the past three years alone, the total wealth of California’s billionaires grew by a staggering 144%, to over $2 trillion," the economists wrote. "Critics of the ballot measure have voiced concerns that even a small number of billionaires leaving the state would lead to lower state tax revenues overall. Their math doesn’t add up. California’s billionaires currently pay such a low tax rate that even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments under the current set of rules to surpass the amount the state would raise if the one-time tax succeeds this fall."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California."
Last week, organizers of the wealth tax initiative offered to withdraw its proposal if Newsom threw his support behind legislation imposing a 2% tax on California's billionaires—a compromise plan that the governor swiftly rejected.
"The governor supports making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, but this poorly designed state-only measure will defund teachers, schools, clinics, and public safety," said Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos. "Changing the tax rate doesn't change this measure's fundamental flaws that harm working Californians."
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West—the union leading the ballot initiative—hit back, accusing Newsom's office of "engaging in Trump-like misinformation tactics, which is sad and indefensible."
"The billionaire tax explicitly funds clinics, hospitals, schools, teachers, and food assistance to the tune of billions," Jimenez said in an emailed statement. "All objective reports have shown that the wealth tax raises billions to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance—and the revenue that will be raised far surpasses any potential income tax erosion—in no small part because billionaires pay very little relative income tax."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California," Jimenez added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Keep Digging': Progressives Welcome Jeff Bezos' Entrance Into Tax-the-Billionaires Debate
"The political danger in Bezos’ argument" to eliminate income taxes for the bottom 50% of American earners, said one op-ed, "is that it lets billionaires sound generous while leaving the structure of wealth largely untouched."
May 22, 2026
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' decision to wade into the tax the rich debate raised eyebrows Thursday, as progressives who have long demanded a wealth tax for billionaires said they'd be happy to include him in the ongoing discussion about how the US tax system can be reformed to benefit working people.
In an interview with CNBC this week, the world's fourth-richest person claimed that doubling his taxes would do nothing to help working people, and attempted to shift the conversation on the tax system to a proposal that the bottom 50% of earners in the US should pay nothing in income taxes.
“You could double the taxes I pay, and it’s not going to help that teacher in Queens," said Bezos. "I promise you.”
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani replied, "I know a few teachers in Queens who would beg to differ." The democratic socialist has been relentlessly focused on making the city more affordable for working people and last month announced his plan to tax second homes valued at more than $5 million.
Critics of Bezos were quick to point out this week that the 1% effective tax rate the billionaire paid between 2014-18 was due to his avoidance of the income tax that working Americans have to pay, with the executive "offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions."
Progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have argued that billionaires including Bezos pay a lower effective tax rate than working people because a vast amount of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and other investments instead of income from labor.
Bezos has also not faced a tax on his immense overall wealth of $275.4 billion, which US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressives have long called for, saying that taxing a relatively tiny amount of the assets held by billionaires like Bezos, Tesla founder and President Donald Trump megadonor Elon Musk, and other tech and business executives could fund essential services for the rest of society—including many that have contributed to the affordability crisis for working families.
"Let's have that debate" regarding reforms to the US tax system, Sanders said Thursday evening, addressing Bezos on Musk's platform X.
The senator has proposed a 5% annual wealth tax, which he said would leave Bezos still sitting on $269 billion in total wealth, while providing enough revenue to fund guaranteed universal childcare, an expansion of Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care for senior citizens, a nationwide starting salary of $60,000 per year for public school teachers, and more.
In his interview with CNBC and on social media this week, Bezos repeatedly attempted to shift attention away from his taxes and onto the income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of earners, claiming that the "top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes."
"The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world," he asserted. "We can make it even more progressive by zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. It’s a small amount of the total tax revenue but very meaningful to people in this group."
Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman, who has also called for a wealth tax and last month co-authored a Guardian op-ed with Mamdani explaining how the regressive tax system of the US has helped ensure the top 0.0001% of the global population holds the equivalent of 16% of the world's wealth, said Bezos was misrepresenting the conclusions of global economists regarding the US system.
"Your claim that the top 1% pays 40% of taxes and the bottom 50% only 3% is misleading: It captures just one tax—the federal income tax—and ignores all the rest: payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, excise duties, etc., many of which are regressive," said Zucman.
Bezos continued debating the issue on social media on Wednesday, sharing an article that explained how numerous analyses have determined he has paid an effective tax rate hovering around 1%.
"Great to see Bezos keeps bringing up his own massive tax avoidance. Keep digging! This travesty needs a real public debate," said historian Rutger Bregman, sharing a graph from Zucman's research, which shows how the average tax rate of the richest Americans has plummeted in recent decades.
At Newsweek on Wednesday, the magazine's editors wrote that Bezos was correct in his CNBC interview that "one billionaire's larger tax bill will not fund a modern state by itself."
"The deeper issue is whether the tax system asks comparable civic seriousness from wages, capital gains, inheritances, consumption, and payroll," wrote the editors. "A nurse's paycheck is easy to tax because it is visible. A billionaire's wealth can grow through assets that may remain untaxed until sale, or perhaps sheltered safely in some offshore domain."
"The political danger in Bezos’ argument" to allow the bottom 50% of American earners to pay nothing in income tax, the editors added, "is that it lets billionaires sound generous while leaving the structure of wealth largely untouched."
Thom Hartmann of The Hartmann Report said Bezos' push to eliminate income taxes for a huge swath of Americans benefits him and other billionaires in three ways, while ultimately harming those he claims to be trying to help save money:
First, it gets millions of Americans on the “we shouldn’t ever pay any income taxes at all” train that’s been rolling for billionaires ever since [former President Ronald] Reagan first gutted our tax code, leading to an explosion of the morbidly rich.
Second, it gets those same average, tax-paying voters on board with Bezos’ second claim, that America’s debt problem isn’t because we’re taxing too little but because we’re “spending too much.”
If we just got rid of—or privatized/profitized—all those pesky “socialist” programs like Medicaid, food stamps, free public highways, fire and police departments, Social Security, food and drug regulation and inspection, air traffic control and TSA, housing subsidies, Pell grants, free public schools, etc., then even billionaires could safely live tax-free.
Third, it means that Bezos will be able to reduce his own labor costs, because the marketplace in which pay rates exist are always exclusively reacting to “after tax” dollars.
Hartmann highlighted Bezos' resistance to a wealth tax and a fair tax rate with an anecdote about "a very wealthy German businessman" he once saw interviewed by an American reporter on Bloomberg News.
The businessman asked the reporter "how he could possibly live in a country" that taxes "very wealthy and successful people" at about 60%.
"Why don’t you lead a revolt against those high taxes?" he asked, his tone implying the businessman was badly in need of some good old American rebellion-making.
The German businessman paused for a long moment and then leaned forward, putting his elbows on his knees, his clasped hands in front of him pointing at the reporter as if in prayer.
He stared at the man for another long moment and then, in the tone of voice an adult uses to correct a spoiled child, said simply, "I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country."
In contrast, Hartmann wrote, "the billionaires and foreign oligarchs who fund the Republican Party and right-wing media think it’s perfectly fine to rip the financial and political guts out of their own nation and turn its people against each other if it lets them keep a few extra bucks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economist Explains '$100-$150 Billion Per Year' Reason Trump Kidnapped Maduro
"The real goal of the Trump operation lies elsewhere: reclaiming Venezuela’s oil rents for the benefit of America’s economic elite."
Jan 05, 2026
A leading international economist said Sunday that the US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its socialist leader are about reasserting control over the world's largest petroleum reserves by Washington imperialists and Wall Street shareholders.
Gabriel Zucman—a professor at the Paris School of Economics and University of California, Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy—said on his Substack that the US invasion is motivated by the "$100–$150 billion per year to be captured by US shareholders of oil companies, should a new regime friendly to US interests take power in Caracas."
President Donald Trump and other senior US officials have openly vowed to seize Venezuela's oil, even while claiming that Saturday's invasion and abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife are about bringing Maduro to justice on dubious criminal charges, combating narco-trafficking, and protecting US national security.
"Maduro was a brutal and corrupt autocrat," Zucman, who also directs the independent EU Tax Observatory, continued. "But Trump has never had any trouble working with brutal and corrupt autocrats; such traits rarely trouble him."
Indeed, the Trump administration have provided military, financial, or diplomatic support to some of the world's most prolific human rights violators, from the Gulf monarchies to Egypt's military rulers to a sadistic dynasty in Equatorial Guinea and dictatorships in Central Asian countries including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. All of the aforementioned nations sit atop major oil and natural gas deposits.
"The real goal of the Trump operation lies elsewhere: reclaiming Venezuela’s oil rents for the benefit of America’s economic elite—an arrangement that peaked in the 1950s," Zucman asserted, referring to a period in which then-Venezuelan President Marcos Pérez Jiménez ruled the country with an iron fist and was backed by Washington, largely because he let foreign oil companies exploit Venezuela's vast petroleum resources.
"In 1957, at the peak of this extractive regime, profits earned by US oil companies in Venezuela were roughly equal to the profits earned by all US multinationals—across all industries—in the rest of Latin America and in continental European countries combined," he continued.
"About 12% of Venezuela’s net domestic product—the value of everything produced in the country each year—flowed directly to the pockets of US shareholders," Zucman noted. "That was roughly the same amount of income received by the poorest half of the Venezuelan population combined."
"This is the 'golden age' the Trump administration wants to bring back: a sharing of oil rents that is difficult to imagine being more unequal," he added.
Critics have accused the US of waging war for oil for nearly a century. US administrations have explicitly asserted the right to use military force to safeguard control of access to petroleum resources since the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The George W. Bush administration even initially called its impending invasion and occupation of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation," before changing it so the abbreviation did not spell "OIL."
While Trump campaigned on the promise of no new wars and claims to avoid giving world leaders "lectures on how to live," he has now ordered the bombing of more nations than any US president in history. All 10 countries attacked by Trump since 2017—Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—are oil producers or possess significant fossil fuel resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top French Economist Says Ex-Prime Ministers Should Have Embraced Wealth Tax
"This blocking attitude is at the heart of the budget crisis and also, as a result, of the current political crisis," said Gabriel Zucman after another French prime minister resigned.
Oct 07, 2025
On the heels of France losing yet another prime minister, Politico on Tuesday published an interview in which world-renowned French economist Gabriel Zucman argued that the recently departed leaders should have supported his proposed wealth tax.
Zucman, who leads the EU Tax Observatory and teaches at French and US universities, has advocated for imposing a wealth tax of at least 2% for the ultrarich in France and around the world. However, Sébastien Lecornu, who resigned as prime minister on Monday, after less than a month in office, did not embrace that approach, the economist noted.
Former Prime Minister François Bayrou also didn't support the "Zucman tax." He was in the post when the French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—and when the Senate ultimately rejected the policy in June. He resigned in early September, after losing a no-confidence vote.
Before both of them, Michel Barnier was prime minister. He resigned last December, also after losing a no-confidence vote. He, too, didn't embrace the tax policy, despite polling that shows, as Zucman put it, "there is a very strong demand among the population for greater tax fairness and better taxation of the ultrarich."
"The executive has so far remained completely deaf to both parliamentary work and popular democratic demands," Zucman told Politico's Giorgio Leali. "They didn't try to have a real dialogue with the opposition on this."
"The very wealthy individuals affected by this measure, and the media outlets they own, have spoken out very vehemently on the subject in an attempt to discourage the government from engaging in any form of reflection or discussion," he added.
On social media, Leali shared a quote from Zucman tying the former prime ministers' attitudes on the tax proposal and broader budget fight to the country's current political crisis—in which "increasingly isolated" President Emmanuel Macron faces pressure from across France's political spectrum to hold a snap parliamentary election or resign.
As Reuters reported Tuesday, "Resignation calls, long confined to the fringes, have entered the mainstream during one of the worst political crises since the 1958 creation of the Fifth Republic, France's current system of government."
Even Édouard Philippe—who, as France 24 noted, was "Macron's longest-serving prime minister from 2017 to 2020"—is urging him to step down, saying that the president must help France "emerge in an orderly and dignified manner from a political crisis that is harming the country."
After the anti-austerity "Block Everything" protests across France on September 10, Mathilde Panot of the leftist party La France Insoumise (LFI) announced that 100 members of Parliament endorsed a motion to impeach Macron.
LFI founder Jean-Luc Mélenchon said Monday that "following the resignation of Sébastien Lecornu, we call for the immediate consideration of the motion tabled by 104 MPs for the impeachment of Emmanuel Macron."
"Emmanuel Macron is responsible for the political chaos," he said, calling out "those in power" for failing to respond to not only the demonstrations on September 10 but also the union mobilizations on September 18 and October 2.
"The president is rejected by public opinion, which desires his departure, and he has lost the support of ALL the parties in his political coalition," Mélenchon added Tuesday. "Why does he remain? A return to coherence for the country requires his departure and a return to the voice of the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2% Wealth Tax on Just 3,000 Billionaires Could Raise $250 Billion a Year: Nobel Economists
"Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible."
Jul 07, 2025
Seven Nobel laureates on Monday published an op-ed advocating for "a minimum tax for the ultrarich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth," in the French newspaper Le Monde.
"They have never been so wealthy and yet contribute very little to the public coffers: From Bernard Arnault to Elon Musk, billionaires have significantly lower tax rates than the average taxpayer," wrote Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz.
Citing pioneering research from the E.U. Tax Observatory, the renowned economists noted that "ultrawealthy individuals pay around 0% to 0.6% of their wealth in income tax. In a country like the United States, their effective tax rate is around 0.6%, while in a country like France, it is closer to 0.1%."
Although the "ultrawealthy can easily structure their wealth to avoid income tax, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of tax justice," the strategies for doing so differ by region, the experts detailed. Europeans often use family holding companies that are banned in the United States, "which explains why the wealthy are more heavily taxed there than in Europe—though some have still managed to find workarounds."
The good news is that "there is no inevitability here. Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible," argued the economists, who say that taxing the overall wealth of the ultrarich, not just income, is the key.
The wealth tax approach, they wrote, "is effective because it targets all forms of tax optimization, whatever their nature. It is targeted, as it applies only to the wealthiest taxpayers, and only to those among them who engage in tax avoidance."
💡 "One of the most promising avenues is to introduce a minimum tax for the ultra-rich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth."Seven Nobel laureates in economics advocate for the Zucman tax in their latest op-ed.Read the full @lemonde.fr article 👇www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...
[image or embed]
— EU Tax Observatory (@taxobservatory.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 8:05 AM
The anticipated impact would be significant. As the op-ed highlights: "Globally, a 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals. In Europe, around $50 billion could be raised. And by extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly."
That's according to a June 2024 report that French economist and E.U. Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman prepared for the Group of 20's Brazilian presidency—which was followed by G20 leaders' November commitment to taxing the rich and last month's related proposal from the governments of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain.
"The international movement is underway," the economists declared Monday, also pointing to recent developments on the "Zucman tax" in France. The French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—but the Senate rejected the measure last month.
The economists urged the European country to keep working at it, writing that "at a time of ballooning public deficits and exploding extreme wealth, the French government must seize the initiative approved by the National Assembly. There is no reason to wait for an international agreement to be finalized—on the contrary, France should lead by example, as it has done in the past," when it was the first country to introduce a value-added tax (VAT).
"As for the risk of tax exile, the bill passed by the National Assembly provides that taxpayers would remain subject to the minimum tax for five years after leaving the country," they wrote. "The government could go further and propose extending this period to 10 years, which would likely reduce the risk of expatriation even more."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top 19 'Truly Superwealthy' US Families Grew $1 Trillion Richer Last Year: Analysis
Families including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg now control a combined $2.6 trillion in wealth, according to renowned economist Gabriel Zucman.
Apr 23, 2025
A new analysis by a leading chronicler of the United States' exploding inequality shows that the 19 richest American households added $1 trillion to their collective fortunes last year and saw their share of the nation's wealth jump at a record-shattering pace.
The analysis by Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that the 19 wealthiest U.S. families now control 1.8%—or $2.6 trillion—of the nation's total household wealth.
In 2024, those ultrarich households saw the largest single-year wealth increase on record.
The Wall Street Journal noted in its Wednesday write-up of Zucman's analysis—based on data from Forbes, Fortune, and the Federal Reserve—that the families in his "research on the top 0.00001% in the U.S. are worth at least $45 billion per household and include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and private-equity investor Stephen Schwarzman."
Their wealth is largely tied up in the U.S. stock market, which rose more than 23% in 2024. The richest 10% of U.S. households control 93% of stock market wealth, according to the Federal Reserve.
(Source: Gabriel Zucman via The Wall Street Journal)
Zucman, whose analysis dates back to 1913, told the Journal that the U.S. has recently seen a "dramatic acceleration in the rise of the share of wealth owned by the truly superwealthy"—a trend that would continue if President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress pass tax legislation largely benefiting the rich.
"If there's one glimmer of hope it is this," Zucman wrote on social media last month, pointing to a packed "Fighting Oligarchy" rally held in Denver by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
"There is a strong anti-oligarchic current in America, and it has a formidable champion," Zucman added. "Fight!"
The Journal reported Wednesday that "a household in the top 0.1%—roughly 133,000 households each worth at least $46.3 million—accumulated an average of $3.4 million a year since the third quarter of 1990, in 2024 dollars."
"In comparison, the wealth of the rest of the top 1%—roughly 1.2 million households each worth at least $11.2 million—grew by an average of $450,000 per household, per year," the Journal added.
Meanwhile, families at the bottom of the U.S. income and wealth distribution have struggled due to what the Economic Policy Institute recently described as "policy-induced wage suppression."
A February working paper by the think tank RAND estimated that the bottom 90% of U.S. workers would have earned $3.9 trillion more in 2023 alone had the income distribution been more even rather than flowing disproportionately to the top.
"Since 1975, nearly $80 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%," Sanders said last month in response to the paper. "The massive income and wealth inequality in America today is not only morally unjust, it is profoundly damaging to our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy