

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.
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," said one critic.
The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development is facing criticism for buckling under US demands when finalizing an update to the global minimum corporate tax agreement.
As reported by Reuters on Monday, the OECD agreed to amend a 2021 deal to enforce a 15% global minimum corporate tax to include "simplifications and carve-outs to align US minimum tax laws with global standards, accommodating earlier objections raised by the Trump administration."
Under the original framework, OECD members agreed to apply a 15% corporate tax on multinational corporations that book profits in jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
President Donald Trump objected to this, however, and insisted that some US corporations be given exemptions that have subsequently been granted by OECD states.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the revised deal "represents a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach," while noting that it allowed for US-headquartered firms to be subject only to US global minimum taxes.
Some critics, though, accused the OECD of letting the US get away with robbery.
Zorka Milin, policy director at the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, warned that the deal "risks nearly a decade of global progress on corporate taxation" by allowing "the largest, most profitable American companies to keep parking profits in tax havens."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," Milin added.
Alex Cobham, chief executive at Tax Justice Network, said other OECD members were only hurting themselves by caving to Trump's demands.
"By the Tax Justice Network’s assessment, France for example is already losing $14 billion a year to tax cheating US firms, Germany is losing $16 billion, and the UK is losing $9 billion," Cobham explained. "Today’s bending of the knee to Trump will cost countries billions more. But how much more? Tellingly, the OECD, which has delivered this shameful result, and OECD members have not put a number on the scale of tax losses that will result."
An analysis published last month by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) made the case that global minimum corporate taxes were needed to prevent US companies from sheltering vast profits by reporting them in nations that serve as offshore tax havens.
As an example, ITEP pointed to data showing that the profits US companies reported in notorious tax havens such as Barbados and the British Virgin Islands were more than 100% of those territories' gross domestic product, which the report noted "is obviously impossible."
ITEP went on to state that full implementation of this global minimum tax is "the best hope for blocking the types of tax avoidance that have weakened corporate income taxes all over the world" by making it "difficult for any single government (even one as powerful as the US) to ignore or weaken it."
... by giving nearly half of his $500 billion fortune to the children of the world.
"Let's make the world's richest man the richest man in town!" urges a new campaign launched Friday by the economic advocacy group Tax Justice Network, borrowing a memorable line from the classic film "It's a Wonderful Life."
The group's global petition emphasizes that SpaceX owner Elon Musk is already the richest person in the world, with a net worth of $508.4 billion—more than double the assets of the planet's next-richest person, Google co-founder Larry Page.
Tax Justice Network's (TJN) petition invites Musk to give 44% of his wealth—$223.6 billion—to the children of the world. That amount of money would allow the purchase of a $90 gift card for all 2.4 billion of the planet's children under the age of 18, and could stop more than 100 million children from going hungry this holiday season.
And Musk would still be the richest person alive, emphasized the group.
Let’s make the world’s richest man feel like the richest man in town this Christmas! Sign our Christmas card inviting Elon Musk to gift 44% of his wealth to the children of the world to create 2 billion smiles and still be the world’s richest man alive! #WealthTax #TaxTheSuperRichc.org/jnnZhmp6J4
[image or embed]
— Tax Justice Network (@taxjustice.net) December 12, 2025 at 10:40 AM
The campaign quotes Harry Bailey's famous line declaring his brother George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, "the richest man in town" in "It's a Wonderful Life," after George's neighbors donate money to save him from financial ruin.
“We’re obviously poking a little fun here but the point is to show how extreme the concentration of wealth has become," said Alex Cobham, chief executive at TJN. "Depending on where you are in the world, if you earn the average wage, you’d need to work anywhere from 20 times to a thousand times longer than humans have existed to earn as much wealth as Elon Musk has collected."
The petition notes that TJN and the world's children "would also settle for a 2% wealth tax on the superrich," which would allow countries around the world to raise $2 trillion per year if it was applied to the richest 0.5% of people on the planet.
"That’s enough public money to meet most countries’ climate finance needs, and leave billions to spare for local public services," the group said.
The group pointed to a recent G20 report declaring a global "inequality emergency" and last week's World Inequality Report, which found that fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires—just 0.001% of the world's population—own three times more wealth than the entire bottom 50% of humanity.
"Within almost every region, the top 1% alone hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined," noted TJN.
The petition emphasizes the difference between collected wealth—the kind enjoyed by Musk and other superrich people—and earned wealth. The vast majority of people earn money for what they do, notes TJN. Musk and other billionaires "get paid for what [they] own, so dividends for owning stocks and rent money for owning real estate."
Billionaires including Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Oracle executive Larry Ellison famously take salaries of just $1, but the money that's made them part of the world's superrich is their collected wealth, emphasized TJN.
"Earned wealth cannot create billionaires," said TJN. "Only collected wealth grows fast enough to do so. It’s impossible to earn a billion dollars."
A ProPublica report in 2021 detailed how billionaires like Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid a collective "true tax rate" of just 3.4% while the median American household made $70,000 and paid a tax rate of 14%.
"This special tax treatment has helped the superrich quadruple their wealth since the 1980s to extreme levels," said TJN. "Studies directly link this rise in extreme wealth to lower economic productivity, to more households going into debt and to people living shorter lives."
Musk in the past has pledged to use his extreme wealth to help people around the world—only to renege on his promises. In 2022, he challenged then-World Food Program chief David Beasley to prove, as Beasley had stated, that a small fraction of Musk's wealth could help address world hunger. He pledged to donate $6 billion by selling his Tesla stock if the WFP could prove the contribution would "solve world hunger."
The WFP responded with a report detailing how $6 billion could feed 42 million at-risk people and prevent them from going hungry for a year. But Musk didn't follow through with his pledge, instead donating $5.7 billion of his Tesla shares to his own foundation.
This year, Musk spearheaded a push to slash government spending on foreign aid, with the US Agency for International Development a key target. The cuts have already proven deadly for children in impoverished nations.
Cobham on Monday pointed to research showing that the skyrocketing wealth of the richest 1% of Americans over the past 40 years has not led "to more investments, and instead resulted in dissaving among non-rich households."
“We now have plenty of evidence showing that extreme wealth shrinks economies, makes people poorer, and threatens democracy," said Cobham. "The best way to protect people, economies, and planet from the harms of extreme wealth is to end the special tax treatment that collected wealth gets over earned wealth. We must tax extreme wealth more effectively to protect the earner way of life we all rely on. Whether you’re a wealth collector or a wealth earner, we all have an equal responsibility to pitch in our fair share.”
New analysis by the Tax Justice Network shows that governments could raise an additional $2.6 trillion each year by applying a modest wealth tax to the richest 0.5% of households and ending corporate tax abuse.
As the climate crisis accelerates, global fault lines are widening. Wealthy nations are gutting aid budgets while pouring fortunes into their militaries. Their climate finance commitments ring empty, masked by claims that public funds have run dry. But the reality is different: The money is there, and a bold tax justice agenda can unlock it. Reclaiming tax sovereignty—the power to decide how wealth is taxed and where it goes—can shift resources away from billionaires and corporate giants to fund real climate solutions.
This isn’t a funding gap. It’s a sovereignty gap.
New analysis by the Tax Justice Network shows that governments could raise an additional $2.6 trillion each year by applying a modest wealth tax to the richest 0.5% of households and ending corporate tax abuse. That would be more than enough to meet global climate finance needs and still leave most countries with billions to invest in care, education, and green jobs at home.
Extreme wealth fuels climate inaction, rising debt, and inequality. In a world on fire, refusing to tax those who profit most is no longer neutral—it’s a global risk.
The climate crisis is accelerating. Floods, heatwaves, and crop failures are pushing more people into precarity. The costs of climate adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage are projected to reach $9 trillion per year by 2030. Yet the global community is still scrambling to honor a $100 billion pledge first made over 15 years ago.
As the Bonn climate talks come to a close and attention turns to the fourth Financing for Development conference in Seville, climate finance remains a structural void that policy declarations alone cannot fill. On the road to COP30 in Belém, governments face a critical choice: Keep chasing inadequate voluntary climate finance handouts, or finally confront the rigged tax systems that let the superrich and big polluters amass obscene wealth while the planet burns.
Tax Justice Network reveals that fair taxation of extreme wealth combined with measures to curb cross-border tax abuse by multinational corporations could raise $2.6 trillion each year—enough to more than double the $1.3 trillion annual climate finance goal that United Nations member countries are aiming to reach by 2030. The real issue isn’t where new money will come from, but why governments keep letting existing public resources leak through the cracks of a broken tax system.
By applying a minimal annual wealth tax of 1.7-3.5% and reclaiming tax revenue from multinationals that underpay tax, countries could unlock additional tax revenue equivalent to 2.4%of global GDP. This is money that could be raised today if governments stopped letting it slip away through loopholes and inaction.
We modeled what countries could raise and contribute based on historic responsibility for emissions. The results are striking. If countries were to contribute to a global climate finance fund sized at $300 billion—the lower end of the current debate—then 89% of countries could cover their share and still have billions left over for public services. Even if the fund were scaled up to $1.5 trillion, 58% of countries would still contribute their fair share and have billions to spare.
Take the United States. It could raise enough additional revenue to contribute $365 billion a year toward climate finance and still be left with $412 billion to spend at home. China, India, the United Kingdom, and Brazil follow the same pattern.
This is the core message of our climate finance slider tool. Taxing extreme wealth and curbing tax abuse does not pit climate justice against development. It enables both. The interactive tool shows how much countries could raise and how much they could contribute if tax rules were rebalanced in favor of people and planet.
So why are countries still acting like climate finance is unaffordable?
The answer lies in decades of eroded tax sovereignty. Countries have signed away their taxing rights through outdated and unfair treaties, allowed wealth to flow into secrecy jurisdictions, and catered to corporate demands for tax cuts and incentives—often under conditions of debt dependence and economic coercion. In the process, governments have weakened their ability and willingness to tax those most responsible for fuelling the climate crisis.
Today, 61% of countries were found to have an “endangered” level of tax sovereignty or worse—meaning they are failing to collect tax revenue worth at least 5% f what they already raise, largely from their richest households and from multinational corporations that underpay tax. Nearly a fifth of countries (19%) fall into the “negated” category, missing out on the equivalent of 15% or more of their annual tax revenue. These are not natural constraints. They are political outcomes shaped by an unequal global financial system.
Across the Global South, the consequences are particularly acute. Many governments face impossible tradeoffs—between education and adaptation, between debt service and disaster response. As United Nations independent expert Attiya Waris has warned:
Across the Global South, care and climate responses are being sacrificed to servicing debts that dwarf the funds we need for a just transition. These sacrifices reflect an international financial order that prioritises creditor claims over human and planetary well-being.
Climate finance cannot be separated from this wider context of fiscal injustice. When governments are forced to borrow for every disaster or rely on discretionary aid pledges, they lose both agency and time. The race to build resilience becomes a race against the clock—one they cannot win without revenue.
It is time to reframe the debate. Climate finance must not rely on broken promises or voluntary pledges. It must be embedded in systems that are fair and redistributive. That means tax systems—ones that reflect both capacity to pay and responsibility for emissions.
The upcoming U.N. Tax Convention offers a once in a generation opportunity to rebalance global tax rules. If done right, it could help all countries reclaim the power to tax their richest residents and corporations fairly. It could end the era of tax havens, profit shifting, and billionaire impunity.
But we do not need to wait for negotiations to conclude. Countries can act now by introducing wealth taxes, renegotiating exploitative tax treaties, increasing transparency, and aligning fiscal policies with climate goals. These reforms are not only possible. They are popular. Polling consistently shows widespread support for taxing extreme wealth to fund public goods.
Extreme wealth fuels climate inaction, rising debt, and inequality. In a world on fire, refusing to tax those who profit most is no longer neutral—it’s a global risk.
By reclaiming tax sovereignty, governments can do what markets and private finance have failed to deliver: fund climate solutions at scale, protect the most vulnerable, and make those most responsible pay their fair share. Refusing to tax isn’t sovereignty—it’s surrender to the idea that tax is a tool for catering to the desires of the superrich, rather than a tool for protecting people’s well-being, the planet, and our collective survival.