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
tax justice
Taxes Need a Rebrand
Too often, tax is framed as a burden instead of a form of shared investment and discussed as a technical obligation rather than the foundation that allows modern societies to function.
Aug 01, 2026
Few issues matter more to the future of societies than how we fund the systems we all depend on. Yet tax remains one of the most misunderstood and poorly communicated public issues of our time.
For many people, taxation is associated with complexity, bureaucracy, and cost. Public debate often centers on what individuals or businesses are required to give up, rather than what those contributions make possible.
That is the problem. Tax's biggest challenge isn't policy. It's a narrative challenge that every society faces, whether in the United States, Argentina, Botswana, Thailand, or anywhere in between.
Too often, tax is framed as a burden instead of a form of shared investment. It is discussed as a technical obligation rather than the foundation that allows modern societies to function. Schools, healthcare systems, transportation networks, courts, emergency services, climate resilience measures, and public safety systems do not emerge on their own. They depend on sustained and predictable collective investment, and taxation remains the primary way societies make that investment possible.
When people can see what their taxes make possible, tax becomes more than a cost. It becomes part of the social contract that helps communities function and thrive.
Seen this way, tax justice is not only about rates, revenue, or technical reforms. It is about whether societies have the resources required to deliver opportunity, security, and resilience in a consistent and equitable way.
Most people do not experience taxation through fiscal policy debates. They experience it through outcomes. They see whether schools are adequately resourced, healthcare is accessible, roads and infrastructure work, and governments can respond effectively to economic shocks, climate risks, and public emergencies.
That means the conversation should not begin with forms, rates, or technical policy language. It should begin with a more immediate and universal question: What do we want to contribute to make our world better, and how should we fund it? Do we want to reduce cancer rates, prepare communities for extreme weather, ensure every child receives a quality education, keep bridges and roads safe, breathe clean air and drink clean water, and build healthcare systems that can care for people as they age without placing the full burden on the next generation?
But changing the narrative around tax also requires rebuilding trust. People are more likely to see taxation as a shared investment when they understand where public money goes, how decisions are made, and how those investments improve daily life. For example, an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report examining public perceptions of tax systems across 29 countries found that in two-thirds of countries surveyed in Asia and the Anglophone Pacific, more respondents agreed than disagreed that public services and infrastructure represent a fair return for their taxes, compared with 30% of countries surveyed in Western Europe and Latin America. This shows that when people can see what their taxes make possible, tax becomes more than a cost. It becomes part of the social contract that helps communities function and thrive.
Federal, regional, and local governments have a responsibility to build that trust, but the scale and complexity of public institutions can make the connection between taxation and public benefit difficult for people to see. This is where philanthropy can play an important supporting role, not by replacing government, but by strengthening the civic infrastructure that helps people understand, scrutinize, and participate in tax debates.
Philanthropy can fund civil society organizations working on tax transparency, accountability, and fairness. It can support independent research that shows how tax policy affects communities, journalism that follows public money, watchdog groups that hold institutions accountable, and civic engagement efforts that help people connect tax decisions to the schools, hospitals, housing, roads, climate protections, and care systems they rely on every day.
In that sense, philanthropy can help rebuild the bridge between contribution and trust. It can make tax feel less like an obligation and more like part of a shared public conversation about what societies need, what people value, and how those priorities should be funded. Philanthropy can also take risks, support innovation, and surface ideas that may later scale through public systems. Taxation provides the foundation. Philanthropy can help strengthen and extend it.
This matters not only for governments and philanthropy today, but for the next generation of wealth holders, donors, advisers, and civic leaders who will shape how contribution is understood in the years ahead. As the world undergoes one of the largest transfers of wealth in modern history, tens of trillions of dollars will move between generations. Those shifts will influence not only private wealth, but also the ability of societies to invest in their collective future.
That makes wealth stewardship an increasingly important conversation. Investment decisions, advisory practices, philanthropic strategies, and family office decisions all influence how wealth is deployed and how contribution itself is understood. These systems help set norms around responsibility, participation, and the relationship between private wealth and public life.
Rebranding tax does not mean making it simple or pretending it is painless. It means making visible what tax makes possible. It means connecting contribution to the public goods people rely on every day. And it means building a shared understanding that a better world is not funded by good intentions alone, but by the choices societies make together.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Join the ‘Stop the Billionaire Giveaway’ Bus Tour to Fight the GOP’s Big Ugly Budget Bill
We’ve seen firsthand that once people learn what is in this harmful tax and budget bill, they strongly oppose it. When they turn out and demonstrate their opposition, or call or write their member of Congress, that makes a difference.
Jun 25, 2025
As the big, ugly GOP budget bill moves through Congress, advocates for a fair economy are hitting the road. Two organizations—Fair Share America and Unrig Our Economy—are bringing experts and stakeholders on a “Stop the Billionaire Giveaway” bus tour to publicize the high stakes in this budget debate. After a kick-off on June 21, the bus will travel to 14 states, from New York to California, to rally the public against a bill that would do more to increase inequality than any other single piece of legislation in U.S. history.
To learn more about the strategy behind the tour, we spoke to Kristen Crowell, executive director of Fair Share America, who plans to be on the bus for the whole 4,000 miles.
Inequality.org: This is a tough organizing environment, with Republicans in control of the Senate, the House, and the White House. How will you give people hope about the chances of influencing this budget debate?
We’ve seen firsthand that once people learn what is in this harmful tax and budget bill, they strongly oppose it. When they turn out and demonstrate their opposition, or call or write their member of Congress, that makes a difference.
Over 50% of people who voted for President Donald Trump a mere eight months ago are opposed to the tax and budget plans in this bill.
For each stop on our bus tour, we have worked with state and local partners to organize rallies, a roundtable, or a similar public event where people can speak out, share their stories, and take part in a growing national movement to oppose this bill and advocate for fair budgets that pay for the things we need and don’t give trillions of our tax dollars away to the billionaire class.
We can still stop this bill.
Inequality.org: Tell us more about the people you’ve already heard from in various states. What are they saying?
Over the past couple of months, I’ve had the privilege of speaking to thousands of people at town hall meetings, while knocking on doors, and while hosting tele-town hall meetings where over 200,000 people joined our lines to hear about what is happening in Washington.
People are angry and afraid about losing the lifelines they and their families depend on and they are mobilizing to make sure their voices of opposition are heard. In many communities, their own GOP member of Congress won’t meet with them, which is infuriating. This is one of the reasons Fair Share America has created public forums for people to show up, learn the truth, and speak out. That’s what we’re continuing to do this summer with the bus tour and beyond.
Inequality.org: We’ve seen the polling on both sides. Some of the tax provisions like “no taxes on tips” are pretty popular. How are you getting the message across that this bill would not benefit most Americans?
Public polling has been consistent. Nearly 80% of the public is opposed to this bill once they learn about what’s in it. We see this mirrored in our canvassing efforts as well. The opposition even crosses the political spectrum. Over 50% of people who voted for President Donald Trump a mere eight months ago are opposed to the tax and budget plans in this bill. While there may be support for some individual provisions, when presented with the whole package, voters understand that these giveaways are skewed to the ultra-wealthy and benefit working people very little.
States will either have to slash services or raise local taxes to make up the loss in federal funds.
There’s also a ton in this bill that working people would lose: When people realize that nearly 16 million people would lose healthcare coverage their opposition strengthens even further. It is crystal clear: The public largely does not support this budget and will not be bought off with small crumbs while the ultra-rich would have huge financial gains.
Inequality.org: Many states are finalizing their own budgets this month. How can states expect the reconciliation bill to impact their budgets?
The GOP reconciliation bill would shift massive costs onto states in several ways that would blow a hole in carefully crafted state budgets. It includes historic new cost-sharing rules that would force states to cover the costs for SNAP. It imposes costly and burdensome paperwork requirements on states and people for Medicaid, significantly reducing the federal funding for the key healthcare program.
In addition to the direct loss of federal funding to the states, the bill also blocks states from raising their own funds for essential programs, targeting provider taxes which fund Medicaid and undercutting the municipal bond market which funds local schools, hospitals, and infrastructure projects. In short, the GOP budget blows a hole in states’ budgets and ties their hands on key issues, just to fund $1.1 trillion in tax handouts to the rich.
States will either have to slash services or raise local taxes to make up the loss in federal funds. Many are already planning for special legislative sessions should this harmful GOP Budget pass.
Inequality.org: You’re planning to be on the bus for the full three weeks of the tour. What’s one tip you can share about how to keep up your energy over all those miles?
Over the past several months, being with and among the American public as Fair Share America and our local partners have held events around the country has been one of the greatest privileges of my organizing career (you can read more about Kristen’s organizing background here).
Hitting the road this summer and getting to be with people who are scared and hurting but doing something powerful together to make change keeps me going. Several of my children will also be joining me on the bus during this tour, and I want to show them a strong example of what it means to stand up for our values. I’ve been working in the tax justice space for a long time and look forward to seeing old friends and new allies along the route. It truly will be one of the greatest months of my life. My love of strong, black coffee doesn’t hurt!
Learn more and sign up for updates about the “Stop the Billionaire Giveaway” bus tour.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 2025, States Will Flip the Script on Taxes to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
State-based advocates have spent years building coalitions of pro-revenue champions committed to working together to fund the programs communities need.
Jan 08, 2025
After every big election, there’s a spotlight on the candidates that came out on top: Who’s in and who’s out, talk about mandates, seat margins, and the First 100 days.
There’s plenty of policy previews about next year.
But one issue will have a starring role both in Washington, D.C. and in states across the country—taxes.
We know Republicans in Washington are writing a play to extend and even expand President-elect Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. And nearly every state will have to adapt to additional fiscal pressures while also finding ways to pay for the things our families and communities need.
We know the vast majority of Americans want the rich to pay more, not less, in taxes—at both the state and federal level. It’s time for elected officials to give the people what they want after years of disappointing performances.
Past sessions foreshadow how anti-tax elected officials around the country will act on behalf of their donors: Each time Republicans have held a trifecta in Washington this century, they’ve demanded tax cuts for the rich. During Covid-19, 26 states cut taxes, often targeting top earners, which will cost $124 billion by 2028.
We’ve seen this show before and it stinks.
The plot is tired, unbelievable, and relegates voters to a bit part, when it’s our communities that should be the lead. How many times do we have to listen to the same trickle-down economic nonsense? It’s getting old.
Polling shows that voters would rather politicians play it straight and raise revenue from big business and the wealthy rather than feel the squeeze as tax cuts lead to budget cuts to the programs and services our kids and communities need most.
Flipping the script on tax cuts for the wealthy is a core reason the State Revenue Alliance was created. Voters feel the economy isn’t working for them and want corporations and billionaire CEOs to pay their fair share. Ultimately in 2025, it’s the people who’ve too often been shut out of policy debates who will fight for tax justice and change the trajectory of tax policy in this country.
Knowing that 2025 would see a confluence of tax fights at the state and federal level, state-based advocates have spent years building coalitions of pro-revenue champions committed to working together and will have the resources to fight for good schools, housing affordability, and accessible healthcare in legislatures around the country.
Together, we’ve made real, tangible, and, yes, sustainable progress in our collective efforts to win pro-revenue policies. In 2024 alone, state-based grassroots organizations, labor groups, policy shops, and legislators supported 35 tax justice bills in state capitols. Six of those bills passed and were signed into law. Those bills included wealth taxes; corporate tax reform; reinstatement or creation of capital gains taxes; repealing certain tax breaks, which too often allowed the wealthiest to shield their assets; and more.
In anticipation of this year, we are already tracking nearly 50 tax justice bills filed in state capitols. When legislative sessions open early next year, our allies will be ready, putting forth a compelling case for ensuring the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fair share at the state level so everyone has a fair shot to survive and thrive.
Rather than divide us, taxes will be an issue that unites community voices across the country in 2025. In addition to our focus on tax justice in states, we will join hundreds of national organizations to demand Congress forgo any additional tax cuts for the wealthy and advocate for new revenue.
An extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will further reward the wealthiest individuals and big corporations with myriad tax breaks and benefits. We know it will come at the expense of working and middle-class families, costing us an estimated $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Extending the TCJA also puts additional strains on states and localities to make up potential funding gaps, as they rely on federal dollars for everything from schools to healthcare, critical infrastructure, and more.
We know the vast majority of Americans want the rich to pay more, not less, in taxes—at both the state and federal level. It’s time for elected officials to give the people what they want after years of disappointing performances.
As storylines develop following the 2024 election, progressives should consider the action in the states around taxes—who pays what they owe, who benefits from them, and whether or not they raise the revenue to fully fund our futures—as the biggest and most unifying fight on the horizon.
If we are successful, 2025 will reveal a more just, equitable, and sustainable tax code that helps build the future our communities deserve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
G20 Leaders Reach 'Landmark Commitment' for Global Tax on Ultrarich
"Now is the time to turn words into action and launch an inclusive international negotiation, extending beyond G20 countries, on the reform of the taxation of the superrich," said economist Gabriel Zucman.
Nov 19, 2024
Acknowledging that "the era of the billionaire" is still in full swing across the globe, economic justice advocates on Tuesday applauded a "landmark commitment" by G20 leaders at the group's annual summit in Rio de Janeiro, where delegates agreed to cooperate on efforts to ensure the richest households in the world are taxed fairly.
The final communiqué out of the G20 Summit includes a commitment from 19 countries, the European Union, and the African Union, to "engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed."
"Cooperation could involve exchanging best practices, encouraging debates around tax principles, and devising anti-avoidance mechanisms, including addressing potentially harmful tax practices," reads the communiqué. "We look forward to continuing to discuss these issues in the G20 and other relevant forums, counting on the technical inputs of relevant international organizations, academia, and experts."
The final text was brokered by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula, and the E.U. Tax Observatory noted that Argentina's right-wing president, Javier Milei, "failed to convince other G20 countries to block the communiqué."
The meeting took place less than a year after economist Gabriel Zucman, director of the E.U. Tax Observatory, published a report titled A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals, which informed G20 finance discussions leading up to the summit.
"A minimum tax on billionaires equal to 2% of their wealth would raise $200-$250 billion per year globally from about 3,000 taxpayers; extending the tax to centimillionaires would add $100-$140 billion," said Zucman, a leading expert on tax avoidance and reducing inequality, in the report.
Billionaires' effective tax rate is currently equivalent to 0.3% of their wealth, requiring them to pay a far lower rate than middle-class taxpayers.
Zucman hailed the agreement out of the summit in Rio de Janeiro as a "historic decision" and said concrete action by the world's governments must follow.
"Now is the time to turn words into action and launch an inclusive international negotiation, extending beyond G20 countries, on the reform of the taxation of the superrich," said Zucman.
Along with Milei, the Biden administration pushed back this year as the G20 weighed Zucman's tax proposal. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told The Wall Street Journal in May that the "notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we're not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That's something we can't sign on to."
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, the U.S. is one of eight countries that are contributing to an international loss of $492 billion in taxes each year as multinational corporations and ultrawealthy individuals underpay. The eight countries—which also include Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the U.K.—oppose a United Nations tax convention.
Jenny Ricks, general secretary of the Fight Inequality Alliance, said that particularly with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump set to take office in January, "we live in the era of the billionaire."
"We need to move to the era of the 99%," said Ricks. "This shift won't come easily. The U.S. elections have shown how the superrich can use their wealth and power to influence policies and shape the outcomes of elections. Leaders like Trump in the U.S. and Javier Milei in Argentina are actively working to derail international cooperation, while politicians around the world fail to oppose the vested interests that continue to benefit from such unequal societies."
"We will fight harder than ever before to transform the rhetoric on taxing the rich into a global reality," she added. "We need more equal societies in which the richest no longer hold all the power and wealth, with devastating consequences. We need to redistribute the wealth of the superrich to fund vital public services and the response to climate change. Such a transformation is essential to creating the alternative we seek to today's broken system."
Viviana Santiago, executive director of Oxfam Brazil, applauded Lula's government and the G20 leaders for responding "to people's demands worldwide to tackle extreme inequality, hunger, and climate breakdown, and particularly for rallying action on taxing the superrich."
"G20 governments deserve praise for their groundbreaking commitment to cooperate on taxing the world's superrich. But we won't rest until this delivers real change for people and planet," said Santiago, adding that governments now ostensibly supporting a tax on billionaires' wealth should also "be championing a $5 trillion climate finance goal at COP29," the U.N. summit set to wrap up in Baku, Azerbaijan this week.
"How can they argue that climate justice is unaffordable with a deal to raise trillions of dollars by taxing the superrich on the table?" she asked.
Quentin Parrinello, policy director at the E.U. Tax Observatory, asserted that negotiations on the tax proposal "must now extend to a much more inclusive space than the G20."
"Such reforms don't happen overnight, but time is pressing," said Parrinello. "This agenda is even more important today, with the risk of geopolitical fragmentation and looming wealth concentration fueling inequality and undermining democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Long-Overdue Justice’: EU Court Rules Ireland Let Apple Avoid $14.4 Billion in Taxes
"This ruling exposes E.U. tax havens' love affair with multinationals."
Sep 10, 2024
The European Union's highest court on Tuesday ruled that Apple must pay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland, determining that the country gave the company illegal tax benefits in the past, in what campaigners called a victory for tax justice.
The E.U. Court of Justice ruling brought to a close a landmark case that began in 2016 when the European Commission ordered Apple to pay the €13 billion ($14.4 billion) based on an unfair tax arrangement the company had with Ireland from 1991 until 2014. A lower court overturned the commission's order in 2020, but Tuesday's ruling, which is final, restores it.
Observers viewed the case as among the most important brought by E.U. Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, an antitrust official who's been in office since 2014.
"It's important to show European taxpayers that once in a while, tax justice can be done," Vestager, who leaves office in two weeks, said following Tuesday's ruling.
Chiara Putaturo, a tax policy adviser at Oxfam EU, said in a statement that "this ruling exposes E.U. tax havens' love affair with multinationals. It delivers long-overdue justice after over a decade of Ireland standing by and allowing Apple to dodge taxes."
Today is a huge win for European citizens and tax justice.
👉In its final judgment, @EUCourtPress confirms @EU_Commission 2016 decision: Ireland granted illegal aid to @Apple.
Ireland now has to release up to 13 billion euros of unpaid taxes.
— Margrethe Vestager (@vestager) September 10, 2024
The European Commission argued that the selective tax benefits that Ireland had offered to two Apple subsidiaries amounted to illegal state aid that hindered competition. The company's tax burden in Ireland, where its European operations have been based since 1980, was as low as 0.005% of its profits in 2014.
In November of last year, Giovanni Pitruzzella, the advocate general of the E.U. Court of Justice, issued an opinion in favor of the commission's position and against the lower court ruling, in a setback for the tech giant. The high court, which is based in Luxembourg, generally agrees with its advocate general following such recommendations, as it ultimately did on Tuesday.
The €13 billion, plus interest, has been held in an escrow account since 2018 and will be released to Ireland, even though the country fought against the commission's order. Ireland said it would respect the court ruling.
Ireland is often characterized a tax haven within the E.U. and hosts the European headquarters for many multinational firms, with critics charging that its tax system drives up inequality.
Tax justice campaigners said Tuesday's ruling should just be a start and that more fundamental reforms are needed at the international and E.U. level.
"Our tax problem is more than just one rotten apple," Tove Maria Ryding, a policy manager at the European Network on Debt and Development, said in a statement.
"The international system for taxing multinational corporations continues to be deeply complex, unpredictable and unfair," she added, arguing that a company's economic activity across many countries, including in the Global South, shouldn't mean tax revenues only for one country such as Ireland.
Ryding praised the United Nations' efforts to establish a global tax convention, calling the proposal a "beacon of hope for a fairer future."
Putaturo of Oxfam likewise called for a fairer tax system in Europe.
"While this ruling will force the tech giant to pay its debt, the root of the issue is far from solved," she said. "E.U. tax havens can still make sweetheart tax deals with big multinationals. The duty to stop this rests on the shoulders of E.U. policymakers. Yet, they have turned a blind eye to tax havens within their borders and the harmful race to the bottom that countries like Ireland are instigating."
Oxfam EU also called for the closing of tax loopholes and the establishment of a wealth tax.
The Apple case was not the only victory for Vestager, the antitrust chief, on Tuesday: The E.U. Court of Justice also ruled that Google had illegally used its search engine dominance to favor its own shopping service, fining the company €2.4 billion ($2.65 billion).
Bloomberg on Tuesday called it a "double boost to the European Union’s crackdown on Big Tech," and said that Vestager's past work had "paved the way" for the U.S. and the U.K. to take action against Google.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Massachusetts Proves It Is Possible to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
With three months still left in the state fiscal year, the new Massachusetts millionaires tax has already generated $1.8 billion in added new revenue, some $800 million more than state officials had projected.
May 26, 2024
This spring has been an exceedingly good one for Flightline Aviation Limited, a London-based enterprise that specializes in helping the world’s deepest pockets find the private jet of their dreams.
“We have closed six sales in the past five weeks,” Flightline’s Anna Campbell gushed at London’s most celebrated luxury trade fair earlier this month. “Everyone seems to want to get a plane for summer.”
Polly Toynbee, a veteran British political columnist, happened to be at that same trade fair. She watched one gentleman talking with a salesman about a showcased private plane and then approached that potential buyer with a question. With so many families struggling to put food on the table, Toynbee asked, shouldn’t the U.K.’s richest be paying “a bit more” in taxes?
“Why would I?” the private-jet aficionado replied.
“Look,” he added, waving at the aircraft on sale all around him, “take any more in tax and the wealthy would be off—away out of here in one of these!”
Before the Fair Share Amendment’s passage, wealthy Massachusetts taxpayers averaging $2.4 million in annual income were only paying 6.8% of that income in state and local taxes.
Off to a place, that gentleman of means was implying, smart enough not to inconvenience its richest residents with any sort of robust tax on income or wealth.
The rich who call the U.K. home have, at the moment, little reason to start looking for one of those tax-getaway locales. Britain’s Labour Party, the likely winner in the nation’s next parliamentary elections, is showing no interest whatsoever in subjecting the U.K.’s richest to any significant tax hike.
“We have no plans for a wealth tax,” Rachel Reeves, the Labour Party’s likely choice for finance minister, announced last summer—and no plans either to put in place a mansion tax or a higher levy on either capital gains or top tax-bracket income.
“I don’t see the way to prosperity as being through taxation,” Reeves went on. “I want to grow the economy.”
The British economy is already growing quite nicely—for the U.K.’s wealthiest. Since 1989, the University of Greenwich economist Ben Tipper points out, the nation’s 200 richest residents have seen their wealth—after taking inflation into account—grow on average by 15% per year.
Throughout human history, adds the U.K. High Pay Center’s Luke Hildyard, living standards for average households have only improved when societies have in place mechanisms “to ensure that wealth doesn’t overwhelmingly flow to the people with all the economic and political power.”
Given that reality, Hildyard posits in his just-published Enough: Why it’s Time to Abolish the Super Rich, modern societies need to both tax the top 1% “more effectively” and get those wealthy to pay more “to the workers at the companies they run and invest in.”
How best to accomplish all that? Progressives in the United States—the only U.K. peer nation with less of a tax burden on its richest—have plenty of ideas on that score. This past week we learned that one of those ideas is generating some encouraging results.
The back story: In 2022, after seven years of dedicated volunteer labor, the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition of over 150 community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions had worked onto the November statewide ballot a constitutional amendment to add what amounted to a special tax on millionaires to the state constitution.
This “Fair Share Amendment” called for adding a 4% state tax on annual income over $1 million to the state’s existing 5% flat-rate income tax. That $1 million threshold, the amendment also spelled out, would adjust annually to reflect cost-of-living increases.
The proceeds from this special new levy on wealthy taxpayers would all go for public education and maintaining and improving the state’s public transit, roads, and bridges.
Voters turned out to like that notion. The Fair Share Amendment passed comfortably, with over 52% of the vote, and went into effect last year.
“The message sailed past billionaire money to victory,” as Jacobin contributing editor Paul Prescod has noted, “because it was clear, compelling, and broad-based: Make the rich pay so we have more revenue to improve the lives of working people.”
How much of a difference has the new Massachusetts levy on millionaires so far made? The Boston Globe earlier this week headlined the surprising answer: “‘Millionaires tax’ has already generated $1.8 billion this year for Massachusetts, blowing past projections.”
Way past projections. With three months still left in the state fiscal year, the new Massachusetts millionaires tax has already generated $1.8 billion in added new revenue, some $800 million more than state officials had projected the tax would raise in their budget for the entire fiscal year.
“Opponents of the Fair Share Amendment,” exulted Raise Up Massachusetts spokesperson Andrew Farnitano, “claimed that multi-millionaires would flee Massachusetts rather than pay the new tax, and they are being proven wrong every day.”
That doesn’t surprise Omar Ocampo, a Massachusetts-based analyst with the Institute for Policy Studies. Research from other states, he notes, demonstrates that instances of “millionaires fleeing increased taxes” turn out to be “extremely rare.”
Before the Fair Share Amendment’s passage, wealthy Massachusetts taxpayers averaging $2.4 million in annual income were only paying 6.8% of that income in state and local taxes, a rate less than the 8.9% of their incomes that taxpayers in the state’s bottom 99% were paying.
The new Fair Share Amendment, estimates the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s Marco Guzman, will raise the combined Massachusetts state and local tax rate on the state’s richest, but only to 8.7%.
In other words, advocates for tax justice in Massachusetts—like advocates for greater equality across the United States and all around the world—still have plenty of victories that need winning. But let’s make sure that we celebrate each victory along the way!
Keep ReadingShow Less
The World Must Fix Tax Disparity or Suffer Catastrophic Consequences
If the world doesn’t continue moving boldly forward on confronting corporate and billionaire tax evasion, it would mean more than inadequate revenue for confronting global inequalities, pandemics, and climate change.
Oct 28, 2023
How can we comprehend—truly comprehend—how concentrated the wealth of our world has become? We have some choices.
We can choose to see the world of concentrated wealth through the eyes of those who directly serve the richest among us, people like the veteran Australian sea captain Brendan O’Shannassy, the author of Superyacht Captain: Life and Leadership in the World’s Most Incredible Industry.
Floating palaces like the $500-million superyacht of mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos can routinely run their deep-pocketed owners over $130,000—per day—for basic upkeep. But these same superyachts, O’Shannassy believes, still constitute the finest investment individuals of immense wealth can make. They offer their deep-pocketed owners both security and relaxation, with no whiff of paparazzi.
Our world’s richest now enjoy “effective tax rates” that annually cost them no more than a mere 0.5% of their personal wealth.
Or we could choose to go in a starkly different direction to better comprehend the wealth of our wealthiest. We could look at these wealthy through the eyes of those who measure just how concentrated our world’s wealth has become. Two just-released reports help us do exactly that.
The first comes from researchers at the Federal Reserve. Every three years, these analysts release a deep dive into the distribution of America’s income and wealth, a copiously detailed snapshot of American household “balance sheets, pensions, income, and demographic characteristics.”
The latest Fed Survey of Consumer Finances—released last week—covers the changes in American family finances between 2019 and 2022.
Over this three-year span, after taking inflation into account, typical American family incomes inched up what the Fed describes as “a relatively modest 3%.” But the incomes of high-income households, the Fed points out, rose at a much more rapid rate, registering “one of the largest three-year changes” that Fed researchers have ever encountered.
On the net-worth front, ordinary households taken as a whole did register gains, the Fed notes, that “far outpaced inflation” between 2019 and 2022, gains that mostly reflect sizeable jumps in the value of owner-occupied houses. But these same sizeable jumps also put home ownership increasingly out of the reach of families seeking to become—for the first time—homeowners.
By 2022, the value of America’s most typical homes was running 4.6 times our nation’s most typical family incomes, an all-time record gap. Financial advisors usually recommend that families should spend no more than three times their annual income for a home of their own.
Other analysts outside the Fed orbit have crunched the new Survey of Consumer Finances raw data to paint a plainer picture of how much wider the wealth gap in the United States has grown since the Federal Reserve began publishing Survey of Consumer Finance reports over three decades ago.
Over those decades, a DQYDJ analysis points out, the inflation-adjusted net worth of the typical American household has gone from $108,501 in 1989 to $192,084 in 2022.
The net worth of the nation’s richest 1% over that same span? That wealth has gone, again after adjusting for inflation, from $5,351,332 in 1989 to $13,666,778 some 33 years later.
Another analysis, from Matt Bruenig at the People’s Policy Project, has used the new Fed data to calculate the share of America’s wealth held by each decile—each 10%—of the nation’s households.
“Overall,” Bruenig concludes, America’s “wealth inequality remains quite high,” with the top 10% of households owning a whopping 73% of the nation’s wealth and the bottom half of U.S. households holding “just 2% of the nation’s wealth.”
The Fed data, analyses like Bruenig’s show, can help us gain a much-needed sense of just how unequal the United States has become. But the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances can only take us so far. The Survey’s data shine no spotlight on the richest of our rich and cover only pre-tax income.
For how the super rich make out after taxes, we have to look elsewhere—and we now have an exceedingly revealing place to look. The E.U. Tax Observatory, a research effort begun in 2021 with backing from the European Union and a variety of academic institutions, has just released a blockbuster new study entitled Global Tax Evasion Report 2024, “an unprecedented international research collaboration building on the work of more than 100 researchers globally.”
Our world’s richest, this new study details, now enjoy “effective tax rates” that annually cost them no more than a mere 0.5% of their personal wealth.
Over the last decade, the E.U. Tax Observatory study notes, a number of individual governments have agreed on major initiatives to counter international tax evasion. Since 2017, for instance, banks have been “automatically” exchanging information helpful in identifying tax evaders. And over 140 nations agreed in 2021 to set an annual 15% “global minimum tax” on multinational corporations.
But assorted loopholes and “carve-outs” have undermined these two reforms. Multinationals last year shifted some $1 trillion of their treasure into tax havens, the equivalent of more than a third of the profits multinationals booked in 2022 outside their headquarters country. And many offshore financial institutions, the new E.U. Tax Observatory report adds, are dragging their feet on deposit disclosure.
Even so, new exchanges of banking data have offshore tax evasion down by a factor of three, and only 25% of financial wealth held “offshore” is currently evading taxes. And the fledgling corporate minimum tax put in place two years ago has generated considerable useful data of its own.
The boldest proposal of all: a call for a new “global minimum tax” on the world’s billionaires equal to 2% of their net worth.
How can the nations of the world go beyond these two initial reform efforts? The Global Tax Evasion Report 2024 identifies a half-dozen specific steps the global community can take “to reconcile globalization with tax justice.”
Three of these recommendations highlight common-sense proposals that ought to be able to gain broad international support. One recommendation, for instance, calls for “the creation of a Global Asset Registry to better fight tax evasion.”
The other three recommendations on the E.U. Tax Observatory’s reform agenda seem certain to face some serious political pushback—from the fans of grand fortune.
One of these three bold proposals calls for new mechanisms that would enable the taxing of wealthy people “who have been long-term residents in a country and choose to move to a low-tax country.” Another would “reform the international agreement on minimum corporate taxation to implement a rate of 25% and remove the loopholes in it.”
The boldest proposal of all: a call for a new “global minimum tax” on the world’s billionaires equal to 2% of their net worth.
Moving forward on proposals like these, the E.U. Tax Observatory report stresses, wouldn’t immediately require thumbs-up from large numbers of nations. Unilateral action by small groups of nations “can pave the way” eventually for more “nearly global agreements.”
The reforms the E.U. Tax Observatory is advancing, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz adds in his introduction to the Global Tax Evasion Report 2024, “may seem impossible to attain, but so was undermining bank secrecy and introducing a minimum tax on corporations just a few years ago.”
And if the world doesn’t continue moving boldly forward on confronting corporate and billionaire tax evasion, what then? Failure on that front, Stiglitz argues, would mean more than inadequate revenue for confronting global inequalities, pandemics, and climate change.
“If citizens don’t believe that everyone is paying their fair share of taxes—and especially if they see the rich and rich corporations not paying their fair share—then they will begin to reject taxation,” Stiglitz projects. “Why should they hand over their hard-earned money when the wealthy don’t?”
In effect, Stiglitz concludes, the “glaring tax disparity” that our richest now enjoy “undermines the proper functioning of our democracy.”
We either fix that disparity or suffer the catastrophic consequences.
Keep ReadingShow Less
OECD Pushed Australia to Drop Plan Aimed at Showing Where Corporations Pay Taxes
"What little credibility the OECD had is now in tatters," said one campaigner. "The OECD makes promises about ending global tax abuse but was evidently doing everything it could behind closed doors to protect tax abusers."
Jul 08, 2023
The Financial Times confirmed Friday that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development lobbied Australia to weaken a law that would have compelled about 2,500 highly profitable multinational corporations to reveal where they pay taxes, eliciting outrage from tax justice advocates.
Citing two unnamed people familiar with the discussions, FT reported that the Paris-based club of wealthy nations "pressured Australia's ruling Labor government to drop a crucial part of a new finance bill that would have required some multinationals to publicly disclose their country-by-country tax bills."
"This shows the true colors of the OECD."
According to the newspaper, "The OECD, which has driven efforts to force the world's largest companies to pay their fair share of tax, believed the bill would have undermined its own efforts to make multinationals' affairs less opaque."
Campaigners were incredulous given that the legislation the OECD enfeebled "would have delivered the biggest transparency breakthrough to date on the taxes of multinational corporations," as the Tax Justice Network put it.
The advocacy group estimates that multinationals shift more than $1.1 trillion of profit into tax havens annually, costing the world $312 billion per year in foregone corporate tax revenue. It also calculates that at least 1 of every 4 of those lost tax dollars could be saved if corporations were required to publish country-by-country reporting data.
"The OECD yet again doing the bidding for big business, the only winners here," tweeted Nabil Ahmed, economic justice director at Oxfam America.
Ahmed's observation was shared by Isabel Ortiz, the former director of social protection at the United Nations' International Labor Organization, who said, "This shows the true colors of the OECD and who [it is] serving."
Australia's original proposal "would have exposed unprecedented details about companies' tax affairs in each country they operate," FT reported, aiding efforts to crack down on tax evasion by forcing an estimated 21% of the world's multinational corporations—including many of the biggest firms in history—to come clean about "how much of their revenues are booked in low-tax jurisdictions."
As the newspaper explained:
The bill was expected to clear the Australian parliament in June and come into force on July 1. However, the version of the bill that passed last month removed crucial disclosures, with the Australian government announcing a delay of the planned public country-by-country tax reporting regime for a year.
People close to the decision said officials from the intergovernmental body had stressed to the Australian Treasury that countries that signed the 2015 OECD agreement did so on the basis the tax reports would not become public.
"This is not a good look for the OECD," the Fair Tax Foundation wrote on social media. "Their work is by definition consensus-based and often lowest common denominator. If a country wants to push on and do something more substantial, they should applaud, not oppose."
David McNair, executive director of global policy at the anti-poverty nonprofit One, argued that "this story seriously undermines the OECD's credibility in the one area that it was leading in recent years."
"I hope it prompts some soul searching on the mission and values of the organization," he added.
"OECD has put itself firmly on the side of secrecy—on the side of tax abuse—against one of its members. That's an extraordinary state of affairs."
As FT observed, "For the past decade the OECD has spearheaded global efforts to close loopholes and restrict the use of tax havens after it was asked by the G20 in 2013 to address the growing problem of corporate tax avoidance."
"While large multinationals already report some country-by-country data to tax authorities under an international agreement brokered by the OECD in 2015, the Australian proposal would have disclosed additional new data points," the newspaper noted. "And crucially the OECD country tax reports are not shared with the public."
FT's article corroborates earlier reporting by the Center for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) and the Tax Justice Network.
Two weeks ago, immediately after the Australian government unexpectedly postponed key components of its landmark bill, both groups suggested that "lobbying against the legislation by multinational corporations and their professional enablers may have been bolstered by the OECD itself—the organization which claims to set international tax rules in order to reduce corporate tax abuse."
In the wake of FT's bombshell story, Tax Justice Network chief executive Alex Cobham said in a statement that "what little credibility the OECD had is now in tatters."
"The OECD makes promises about ending global tax abuse," said Cobham, "but was evidently doing everything it could behind closed doors to protect tax abusers."
The Australian law opposed by the OECD – which may yet be adopted despite the delay – would force one 1 in 5 multinational corporations around the world to come clean about their profits and taxes. This includes many of the world’s biggest multinational corporations... pic.twitter.com/9j3KqNPee4
— Tax Justice Network (@TaxJusticeNet) July 8, 2023
Cobham called it "genuinely shocking to see it confirmed that the OECD has lobbied its own member country against introducing a key measure to fight corporate tax abuse."
"Public country-by-country reporting, when it arrives, will increase revenues around the world to the tune of billions of dollars, by exposing the most egregious profit shifting," Cobham continued. "Investors will benefit from reduced risk in their shareholdings, and employees will benefit both from lower risk and from the chance to negotiate fairly based on a true reporting of the profits of their work. Smaller and domestic businesses will benefit from a more level playing field, instead of a system that subsidizes multinationals' tax bills by effectively granting them immunity from abuse."
"OECD has put itself firmly on the side of secrecy—on the side of tax abuse—against one of its members. That's an extraordinary state of affairs," he added. "And it couldn't send a clearer signal to countries wondering whether the OECD's proposed tax rules will help them to curb tax abuse. They won't, and countries should pursue their own alternatives while preparing for negotiations to establish a proper tax body at the United Nations instead."
Supporters of UN tax leadership have pointed to the OECD’s failure to meaningfully include most countries in its rulemaking process – a concern unlikely to be eased by news of the OECD lobbying its own member against introducing a key measure to fight corporate tax abuse.
— Tax Justice Network (@TaxJusticeNet) July 8, 2023
As economic historian Adam Tooze pointed out, the OECD strong-armed Australia's left-leaning government while being led by Mathias Cormann, a right-wing Australian who previously served as the country's finance minister.
On Saturday, Cormann said in a statement that "the OECD has a proud record of facilitating global cooperation on tax policy and administration, to help ensure globally effective measures to tackle multinational tax avoidance."
"Suggestions the OECD pressured Australia into weakening legislation to tackle such tax avoidance are false," he claimed.
Cobham criticized Cormann's response, pointing out that the OECD secretary-general goes on to admit that the body's experts "raised a number of technical issues," after which Australian lawmakers watered down their proposal.
According to Cobham, the "possible unintended consequences" brought up by OECD experts are "flat wrong." He added that "Cormann seems to have confessed that the OECD did lobby Australia to weaken their proposals to fight corporate tax abuse... and also that they used a false threat to do so—one which, as experts in their own standard, they surely knew was erroneous."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the States Have a Major Role to Play If We Want Tax Justice
If we want more tax fairness from coast to coast, let's push back on the destructive proposals to cut already-too-low taxes on wealthy people and corporations.
Feb 07, 2023
Americans scored a tax victory with last summer's Inflation Reduction Act, raising hundreds of billions of dollars for climate, health and debt reduction, and breaking a long streak of little progress or even backward movement on tax fairness. Now, with fears of gridlock in a divided Washington, tax justice champions are building momentum in other places where there's dire need for better tax policy: the states. We can upgrade communities across the country by making 2023 a year to win tax improvements in statehouses.
Let's start with the good news: lawmakers all over the country are launching campaigns to improve their state tax codes. The people of Massachusetts gave us a head start. They passed a ballot initiative in November to add a 4 percent surcharge on income above a million dollars, having that tiny group pay slightly more than the otherwise flat 5 percent income tax rate. This will generate billions annually to fund schools, restore bridges and make college more affordable. It will make Massachusetts more economically and racially equitable while improving services and infrastructure for residents of all races.
Now advocates in eight more states want to tax wealth in various creative ways. Because extreme wealth is highly concentrated among a small group of the uber-rich, this approach makes a lot of sense. My colleagues at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) recently found that more than one in four dollars of wealth in the U.S. is held by a tiny fraction (0.25 percent!) of households with net worth exceeding $30 million.
When it comes to basing taxation on ability to pay, there is good precedent to build on. Four in five states already have income taxes and two-thirds of those states levy lower rates on low earnings and higher rates on income above a certain threshold. That approach—called a graduated income tax—works well because it raises more from those more able to pay, unlike sales taxes which disproportionately hit poor and middle-income families who have to spend most of what they earn.
But not all the news is rosy. In over half the states with income taxes, moneyed interests are pushing to cut or eliminate those taxes, even though history tells us that cutting income taxes—especially by eliminating graduated rates for higher earnings—means higher taxes on property or on purchases (to make up for the lost revenue), lower revenue despite that (because you'd have to raise these other taxes a lot to fully close the gap), and less equity across income and racial categories.
Unwillingness to have the rich pay their fair share at the federal or state level means we all suffer.
This insightful map tracks what lawmakers in every state are trying to do. Some made their tax codes worse last year and many still want to go in the wrong direction. This is especially bad because, despite the existence of income taxes, most state tax structures as a whole are already upside down, requiring a higher average share of the income of poor and middle-income families than of the rich and uber-rich who already get the most out of our economy.
This unwillingness to have the rich pay their fair share at the federal or state level means we all suffer. That's why American parents struggle to afford childcare that other countries ensure. It's why we don't have universal healthcare or parental leave, in contrast to most of the rest of the world. And it's why college is now so hard to afford.
Lawmakers pushing ill-considered tax cuts are doing so on top of previous underfunding that meant Iowa slashed unemployment benefits, Utah neglected disability assistance, and Mississippi left its sewage systems in a desperate state of disrepair, to cite just a few examples.
Enough. Kids in Louisiana deserve great schools and teachers in Indiana deserve fair pay. Truckers from Oregon to Florida should have health insurance and be able to see a doctor. And a childcare worker—in any state—should be paid enough to retire with dignity.
If we want more tax fairness from coast to coast, let’s push back on the destructive proposals to cut already-too-low taxes on wealthy people and corporations. And let’s jump on the innovative ideas to tax wealth and income from wealth. The result will be a country with stronger schools, healthier communities, and more equity for residents from coast to coast.Keep ReadingShow Less
'Canada Is Back?' Not Until Taxation Is Truly Fair
Libs' apparent willingness to chase corporate cheats only the first step.
Dec 26, 2015
Justin Trudeau is fond of saying, "Canada is back," and in some genuinely gratifying ways, this seems to be the case. But by far, the most important and substantive evidence for this claim is still missing: an indication that the new government is willing to seriously address the issue upon which a genuine return to normal rests. That issue is how we recover from nearly twenty years of systematic looting of the national treasury through reckless tax cuts for high-income earners and large corporations.
Don't get me wrong. I feel the same relief as every other Canadian that public scientists can now speak their minds, that Stephen Harper's war-mongering is history, that we are no longer a pariah on the world stage, overnight that there is at least hope that Ottawa will take aboriginal concerns seriously and that ministers with a passion for their portfolios are more likely to deliver the goods.
However, these initiatives are the low-hanging fruit of the "Canada is back" mantra because they do not cost much money. So far, the only commitment to address the enormous social and other deficits over two decades is a modest tax increase for the highest-income earners. Otherwise, the cupboard is bare, and past Liberal governments helped make it so.
To reverse this ideological recklessness, Justin Trudeau must demonstrate an extraordinary challenge to his party's 20-year commitment to smaller government. The jury is out on whether he wants to —and if he does, whether he is up to the task. One thing is certain: without sustained public pressure, Trudeau's Liberals would be content with administering the fiscal status quo they inherited from Harper.
The first test
Their first test is on the table right now. I am referring to a report produced by the group Canadians for Tax Fairness, or C4TF (disclosure: I am on the board), detailing the Harper government's extensive damage to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The report is unprecedented in that it was produced with the cooperation of 28 (current and recently retired) tax auditors, fraud investigators, and managers of the CRA. According to C4TF, many of them had approached the group over recent years with revelations of Conservative changes that weakened the agency's ability to collect revenue owed to the government.
Detailed in the report are several allegations by the employees, including:
- Politicians and lobbyists are increasingly finding ways to influence CRA operations.
- Corporate lobbying to avoid prosecution is a reality.
- Employees are aware of political interference when proceeding with investigations.
- There are high attrition rates of experienced professionals.
- There has been a reduction or shutdown of enforcement offices across the country.
The CRA responded to the allegations in the report by quoting high employee satisfaction surveys and identifying plans to increase "large audit" spending by 12 percent.
In terms of lost revenue, the key finding in the report was the government's systematic gutting of the tax division responsible for investigating offshore tax havens and recovering the revenue lost to the resulting tax evasion and avoidance. C4TF estimates that at least $199 billion in Canadian wealth is hidden in tax havens around the world, resulting in the loss of up to $10 billion in revenue annually.
The report calls on the Trudeau government to fundamentally change the CRA's priorities -- away from harassing charities, NGOs, and ordinary taxpayers making errors and onto the wealthy and large corporations where the vast majority of revenue is lost.
The media, however, is not focusing on the billions in lost revenue and the damage done to the CRA detailed in the report, and instead is highlighting the issue of how the 28 CRA employees who gave information have allegedly violated the ethics rules that they agreed to as part of the oath of office they signed. There is whistleblower legislation, but it does not protect employees who openly criticize public policy.
The Ottawa Citizen quoted Donald Savois, an expert in the area, calling on the government to investigate what he sees as a breach of ethics. It should have written an editorial calling for the government to fix the CRA.
Talking the talk
There are some encouraging signs that the government might prioritize the issue, though it comes not from the economic ministries. Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion has made the most encouraging comments: "I'd like to address the global economy. It seems like each time we address a problem, like the circulation of funds, businesses use tax havens and do things in our countries, but they don't pay taxes. It's an enormous problem. Whenever [it comes up], I'm told, 'Well, that's up to the international level to resolve.' I'd like to see what Canada could do."
Dion is an influential minister concerning Trudeau. Still, Finance Minister Bill Morneau will ultimately decide how much of a priority to make of the tax haven issue. He is aware of it and under enormous pressure to find revenue that doesn't require raising taxes, stating: "We're going to work on this issue and other issues, and through that work, we would expect that we'll ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses both large and small will pay their appropriate rate of tax."
Morneau has already changed Canada's position regarding corporate tax dodging. The practice of transnational corporations of transfer pricing and tax shifting -- shifting profits made in higher tax countries to low tax locations -- robs global governments of between $100 and $240 billion a year. The new government signed an international agreement negotiated by the OECD and the G20 called Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, aimed at forcing corporations to pay taxes in the countries where the profits are made. Canada ranks as the third largest loser in the G20 in terms of the amount of untaxed corporate revenue.
The government's apparent willingness to go after tax cheats -- corporate and individual -- is good news. But this is just one step in terms of achieving tax justice and fairness and in recovering the over $60 billion a year lost through tax cuts. Letting the need for a genuine national conversation about taxes slip to the back burner would be a mistake. Now that we have a government that says it believes in governing, the question of comprehensive progressive tax reform needs to be front and centre.
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