

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Funny how these same apologists for our richest don’t have much sympathy for ordinary Americans who lack the “wherewithal” to pay for medical care, adequate housing, and other necessities.
The most gaping loophole in our tax law? The tax-free compounding of gains on investments.
This classic loophole enables the two most lucrative inequality-driving income tax avoidance strategies. The first, buy-borrow-die, allows wealthy Americans to avoid income tax entirely on even billions in investment gains.
These wealthy need only hold on to their appreciated assets until death. What if they need cash before then? They merely borrow against the appreciated assets, typically at very low interest rates.
Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?
The second avoidance strategy, buy-hold for decades-sell, lets wealthy investors pay a super low effective annual tax rate on investments that appreciate at high rates over long periods of time. These investors typically experience decades of compounding gains without taxation.
The effective tax rates involved in this second strategy won’t reach buy-borrow-die’s zero tax, but may in some cases get as low as a 4% effective annual rate. A 4% effective annual tax rate would have an investment with a pre-tax growth rate of 20% per year enjoying an after-tax growth rate of 19.2% per year.
Congressional apologists for the ultra-rich on both sides of the aisle regularly claim that their wealthy patrons should be entitled to endless tax-free compounding of investment gains. Without this tax-free compounding, the argument goes, our richest wouldn’t have the “wherewithal to pay” tax on their investment gains before their assets get sold. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) invoked this tired canard at a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing.
Funny how these same apologists for our richest don’t have much sympathy for ordinary Americans who lack the “wherewithal” to pay for medical care, adequate housing, and other necessities. Average wage earners, under current law, can’t even wait until year-end to pay Uncle Sam their taxes. Those taxes come out of each paycheck, wherewithal to pay or not.
Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?
Let’s start with the easiest case: a publicly traded investment that can be sold in smaller units, an investment in stocks, for instance. Say Rich, a wealthy investor, buys 1 million shares of Nvidia at $100 per share, and those shares, by year’s end, increase in value to $120 per share.
Our investor Rich now has a $20 million gain. If that annual gain faced a 25% tax rate, Rich would have a $5 million tax liability. To raise the cash to pay that tax, Rich could sell off 41,667 of his shares, leaving him with 958,333 shares, now worth just under $115 million.
That doesn’t seem very painful.
Now, let’s say Rich didn’t want to sell any shares. He could instead just borrow $5 million against the shares to pay the tax.
Or what if Rich had bought a parcel of land instead of Nvidia shares and, for whatever reason, having him borrow to pay tax on his annual investment gains didn’t turn out to be feasible?
Still no problem for Rich. For gains on illiquid assets, Rich could defer the payment of tax until he sold the assets, but the tax could be computed as if it accrued annually. How might this work? Say, for example, that Rich’s $100 million parcel of land grew at an annual rate of 10% for 20 years, at which point he sold it at its appreciated value of $672,749,995.
Had Rich paid tax at 25% on his gain each year, his rate of return would have been 7.5% per year, and after 20 years his investment would be worth $424,785,110.
The $247,964,885 difference between his sale price and the value of his investment with its actual rate of return reduced by the tax paid would be his tax liability upon sale. Payment of that amount would leave Rich with the same sum, $424,785,110, had he been able to sell a small share of his parcel each year, to pay the tax on his investment gain.
Put another way, Rich would be left with the same amount using this tax computation as he would if he sold his parcel each year, paid tax on the gain, and reinvested the remaining proceeds in another parcel.
And if Rich died before selling his parcel? His income tax could be determined for the year of his death in the same fashion as if he’d sold the parcel for its fair market value at the time of his death. Or, in the alternative, his inheritors could step into his shoes and pay the same tax when they sold the parcel as Rich would have had he survived and sold it at that time.
The bottom line: If we closed the tax-free compounding of investment gains loophole, some situations might exist where the immediate payment of tax on investment gains could pose a problem. But we can address those situations by deferring payment of the tax until investments get sold and accounting for the tax-free compounding in the determination of the tax.
These problematic situations, in other words, don’t justify leaving a gaping loophole in place.
So the obstacle to shutting down buy-borrow-die and buy-hold for decades-sell has absolutely nothing to do with ultra-rich investors lacking the wherewithal to pay taxes. That obstacle remains the politicians in Washington, D.C. who lack the wherewithal to summon the courage to make our rich pay the taxes they owe our nation.
Attorney General Josh Kaul accused the world's richest person and top Trump adviser of "a blatant attempt to violate" Wisconsin's election bribery law.
Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to stop Elon Musk—the world's richest person and a senior adviser to President Donald Trump—from handing out $1 million checks to voters this weekend in an apparent blatant violation of bribery law meant to swing next Tuesday's crucial state Supreme Court election.
"Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote for a particular person," the lawsuit notes. "Musk's announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11. This must not happen."
On Thursday, Musk announced on his X social media site that he will "give a talk" at an undisclosed location in Wisconsin, and that "entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges."
"I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesmen for the petition," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and de facto head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency wrote.
As Common Dreams reported earlier last week, Musk's super political action committee, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition stating that they reject "the actions of activist judges who impose their own views" and demand "a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
The cash awards—which critics have decried as bribery—are part of a multimillion dollar effort by Musk and affiliated super PACs to boost Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, the Trump-backed, right-wing state Supreme Court candidate locked in a tight race with Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.
Left-leaning justices are clinging to a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Schimel are vying to fill the seat now occupied by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who is not running for another 10-year term. Control of the state's highest court will likely impact a wide range of issues, from abortion to labor rights to voter suppression.
Musk has openly admitted why he's spending millions of dollars on the race: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn." That's what he said while hosting Schimel and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for a discussion on X last weekend.
"In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin," Musk argued. "It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman issued a statement Friday calling Musk's planned cash giveaway a "last-minute desperate distraction."
"Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for," Honeyman added, "and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel."
"The multimillionaire Republicans in charge of these key committees cannot properly represent average Americans' tax and spending interests," said the executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness.
An analysis published Thursday shows that Republicans on key committees in the House and Senate are poised to reap huge windfalls for themselves and their families if the trillions of dollars in tax breaks they've been tasked with crafting become law.
The Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) report examines GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The group found that the average net worth of the committees' Republican members is close to $15 million.
Over two-thirds of the 26 members of the House Ways and Means Committee are millionaires, according to ATF.
"The wealthiest GOP members could give themselves a roughly $1.8 million annual income tax cut and their families a potential one-time estate tax cut of $22.8 million—a potential total of $24.6 million in tax cuts if they pass legislation to extend the Trump tax bill," ATF's analysis shows.
The number two Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, is worth nearly $250 million, making him one of the richest members of Congress.
If the tax package that Republican lawmakers are assembling is enacted, Buchanan's family stands to save $5.6 million in taxes thanks to an extension of the 2017 law's estate tax exemptions. Buchanan would personally receive $1.3 million in annual income tax breaks under an extension of the 2017 measure.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who helped secure a major tax gift for the wealthy in the 2017 law, and his family would also benefit to the tune of nearly $6 million from estate tax provisions and other giveaways.
"The multimillionaire Republicans in charge of these key committees cannot properly represent average Americans' tax and spending interests," David Kass, ATF's executive director, said in a statement Thursday. "Their prioritization of extending Trump's tax scam demonstrates their disconnect from middle and working-class constituents' needs."
"While wealthy Democrats also serve on these committees, they aren't promoting continuing the entire Trump tax legislation which primarily benefits rich individuals like them and giant corporations—legislation that would add trillions to the deficit and threaten funding for Social Security, healthcare, education, housing, and other vital public services," Kass added. "A system where millionaires vote for tax benefits favoring other wealthy elites undermines both our economy and democracy."
Under a resolution that House Republicans approved earlier this week, the House Ways and Means Committee is instructed to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than" $4.5 trillion over the next decade—which would clear the way for an extension of the 2017 tax law that President Donald Trump signed during his first term.
The resolution also instructs the committees that oversee Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to enact more than $1 trillion in cuts to partially offset the massive cost of the tax giveaways, which would primarily benefit the rich.
According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), "the richest 1% would receive an average tax cut of more than $78,000 in 2026 alone, far outstripping tax cuts to taxpayers in any other income group."
"More than two-thirds of the benefits of these changes would go to the richest fifth of Americans, with 21% of the benefits flowing to the richest 1% alone," Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director, wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "Meanwhile, the middle fifth (20%) of Americans would get just 10% of the benefits and the poorest fifth of Americans would receive 1%."