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 the rich
'We Could Have Chosen Peace': Abdul El-Sayed Schools Fox News Host on Iran War
"The argument that I think we continue to need to learn is that less war in the world is usually safer."
Oct 05, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed on Monday schooled Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum about President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
While appearing on MacCallum's show, the Michigan Democrat made the case that Trump's war, which he launched without congressional authorization in February, was one "we shouldn't be fighting."
"Why are we fighting this war, to what end?" El-Sayed asked. "Who benefits from it? Why did we do this? What are we paying for it?"
El-Sayed: Why are we fighting this war?FOX: Iran created a huge threat to the neighborhoodEl-Sayed: The nuclear threat had been contained. FOX: I don't know, they had been breaking JCPOA by many estimations. El-Sayed: By estimations people like to cherry-pick, sure https://t.co/qYiCeq4lB3
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 5, 2026
MacCallum responded that Iran "created a huge threat" in the Middle East, and pointed to Iran's role in the 1983 bombing of a barracks that was housing US Marines in Beirut, Lebanon as evidence.
El-Sayed noted that former President Barack Obama had signed a deal with Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, which Trump scrapped during his first term even though Iran was complying with the terms of the agreement at the time.
"Donald Trump came and tore that agreement up, and then, in his second administration, created a war that the people of Michigan are now paying for," said El-Sayed. "Then you ask yourself, does more war make us actually safer? And the argument that I think we continue to need to learn is that less war in the world is usually safer."
"We're in a situation right now where we could have chosen peace," he added. "And instead we chose war. And right, you've got a situation with the Strait of Hormuz where we can't move oil and gas."
Elsewhere in the interview, El-Sayed explained his rationale for raising taxes on the wealthy, whom MacCallum credited with making the US the "engine of the world."
FOX: I understand thinking that some people have too much money. We are engine of the world for these things and people end up being billionaires as a result. El-Sayed: The issue is not that some people have too much money. It’s that the engine that created their opportunity to make money is being underfunded…FOX: You said you wanted to choke them out.El-Sayed: I don't want to choke anyone out. I want to make sure everyone can breathe. Right now, you have an economy where people are getting choked out because they don’t have the basic means for a dignified life because we are more focused on allowing a billionaire to make another billion…
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 5, 2026
"I would rather live in a society where, rather than a billionaire making a second billion, I'm invested in a public school," he said, "so that some kid out there gets a great education, gets to participate in capitalism, builds an amazing business, and gets to make money too."
"I don't want to choke anyone out," El-Sayed explained. "I want to make sure everyone can breathe. Right now, you have an economy where people are getting choked out because they don’t have the basic means for a dignified life because we're all a lot more focused on allowing a billionaire to make a second, third, fifth billion than we are in making sure a kid gets good schools."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just AI and Climate—Inequality Also an 'Existential' Threat That Demands Global Cooperation: UN Chief
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on leaders to work together to solve the growing problem of global inequality at the UN General Assembly.
Sep 17, 2026
High-level meetings at the United Nations General Assembly are set to begin next week, and they come at a time when the threats to humanity posed by the climate emergency and artificial intelligence have never been clearer.
Those crises demand that policymakers work together to prevent catastrophic, permanent planetary heating and the creation of "runaway" AI technology, suggested UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Wednesday, but he emphasized that another pernicious, destructive problem cannot be overlooked.
Guterres also named "the intolerable deepening of inequalities" as another "existential threat" that leaders must address at the upcoming meetings.
Earlier this year, the anti-poverty group Oxfam International released a report showing that combined billionaire wealth stood at $18.2 trillion in 2025, having risen from $3.6 trillion in 2009.
At the same time, the number of food-insecure people on Earth shot up to 2.2 billion in 2024, rising from 1.5 billion a decade earlier.
"Nearly half of the world lives in poverty while a select few continue to gain extreme wealth and power," said Oxfam at the time. "The amount of wealth owned by the poorest half of the world is less than the amount owned by just the 12 richest billionaires. This extreme concentration of wealth isn’t just making life less affordable for most of us, it’s creating harmful divisions. Billionaires, corporations, and politicians are taking away people’s basic ability to make choices about their futures and suppressing dissenting voices."
An analysis focused on wealth inequality in the US by the Center for American Progress (CAP) this week also showed that the gap between the ultrarich and the rest of the American public has gotten significantly wider in less than two years since President Donald Trump was reelected, with hundreds of billions of dollars in financial backing from billionaires including tech CEO Elon Musk.
"Since Trump took office, the ultrawealthy (top 0.1%) gained more than 8,000 times as much wealth per household as those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution," said CAP. "To provide an example of the extremity and exponential nature of wealth inequality in the United States, the 10 wealthiest Americans alone saw their real fortunes grow by a combined $259 billion over the same period, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index—about $26 billion per person, or 22 million times more than the bottom half’s $1,200 per household."
Economic experts have found that the growing inequality crisis is entirely solvable. As Common Dreams reported last year, research from the European Union Tax Observatory found that a global 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth "would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals," raising about $50 billion in Europe alone.
In 2024, finance ministers at a meeting of the Group of 20 in Rio de Janeiro agreed on the need to tax the richest people in the world at a higher rate to address persistent and worsening economic inequality.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, a study published in The Lancet found that the global inequality that's been worsened by Trump's foreign aid cuts could be addressed by a 3% wealth tax—raising a small amount of money compared to the total wealth of the world's richest people, but enough to save 29.5 million lives over the next four years.
Climate campaigners in Africa, who have demanded an end to French company Total Energies' East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), agreed with Guterres' point that "climate, inequality, and international cooperation are inseparable."
"People living along EACOP's path," said the group Stop EACOP, "are the first to bear the environmental and economic costs of decisions made far from their communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Guess What Happened After New York Raised Taxes on the Rich? More Millionaires Moved In
"Tax flight is nothing more than a myth, and should be given as much credence as flat-earthers.”
Sep 10, 2026
The threats came in a steady stream last year from Fox News, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, and Gristedes grocery chain CEO John Catsimatidis, who insisted that wealthy New York City residents were "panicking" at the possibility that then-state Rep. Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, could become the mayor and ensure rich locals pay more in taxes to help fund crucial services.
"It only takes a handful of successful people to leave to decimate the city’s tax base," cautioned Ackman, while Catsimatidis suggested many rich New Yorkers would likely join him in fleeing to "the promised land": Florida, which has no state income tax.
But the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative said Thursday that new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data should be "the final nail in the coffin" of the evidence-free, perennial claim that higher taxes cause wealthy residents to leave their cities and states.
The agency released its 2023 Statistics of Income (SOI) data, covering the period before Mamdani became mayor and introduced a tax on second homes, ranging from 0.8% to 1.3% for properties valued at $5 million or more, which he estimated will raise $500 million annually.
The data shows how the tax base was impacted after the state imposed a separate tax policy in 2022, raising its top tax rate on the highest earners.
Poking a giant hole in the persistent theory that wealthy people won't want to live in states that require more from them in taxes, the number of New Yorkers reporting more than $1 million in income grew by about 3% after the tax rate was raised, the SOI data shows.
"If there was any merit to the myth that tax increases on New York’s wealthy drive them away, the new IRS data should show it. It doesn’t."
The number of millionaires nationwide went down in 2023, but New York counted 2,000 more than it had the previous year. The number of tax filers earning between $500,000 and $1 million also grew by over 8,500—more than 7%.
The average adjusted gross income of New Yorkers who left the state from 2022-23 fell 15%, from over $125,000 to $106,900.
"If the past is prologue, the SOI data suggest few, if any, of the city’s wealthiest residents will leave as a result of a modest tax. Instead they are likely to remain rooted in the social, business, and economic networks that make New York uniquely valuable to them," said Groundwork Collaborative. "The New Yorkers actually at risk of leaving the city are the lower-income workers who power the economy."
Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Collaborative, said the new data makes clear that "tax flight is nothing more than a myth, and should be given as much credence as flat-earthers.”
"If there was any merit to the myth that tax increases on New York’s wealthy drive them away, the new IRS data should show it," said Owens. "It doesn’t—New York’s millionaire population kept climbing years after the state raised taxes on top earners."
Wealthy New Yorkers, said Groundwork, are shown by the data to be "a settled population that may squawk about a tax increase, but not pack up and leave."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What a Disgrace': Trump Treasury Dept. Refuses to Close Billionaire's Private Jet Loophole
"While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Trump administration "focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets."
Sep 03, 2026
A group of Democratic Caucus members in the US Senate on Thursday denounced the US Treasury Department under President Donald Trump over its refusal to close a gaping loophole in the federal tax code that allows some of the wealthiest people in the country to reap tax benefits from their ownership and use of private jets—even as working people and the middle class families struggle to make ends meet in Trump's economy.
In response to a previous request made in July by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to close a rule that allows the wealthy "to substantially undervalue the taxable cost of personal travel on a corporate private jet," a letter from a top Treasury official on Thursday said such an effort would be too "burdensome," including for the uber-rich taxpayers subject to it.
Known as the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL) loophole, the lawmakers have argued that it has been exploited by the extremely wealthy to lower their tax burden even as they travel the country—and the world—in the least energy efficient and most polluting way possible.
"President Trump’s 2017 tax law and Big, Beautiful-for-Billionaires bill handed billionaires and big corporations massive tax breaks on private jets," said Sen. Whitehouse in a statement. "The Trump administration now says it would be ‘burdensome’ to close the private jet tax loophole because this is an administration hell-bent on using the powers of government to make the ultra-rich even richer, and they don’t care if middle-class taxpayers get stuck with the tab."'
Alongside their July letter, the lawmakers shared analyses detailing the loss of the revenue made possible by the SIFL loophole. According to the Whitehouse's office,
analyses by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation detailing the boom in private jet sales after passage of Republicans’ tax cut for corporate jets and highlighting the extent of the tax revenue lost by the abuse of the SIFL loophole. One analysis responds to an inquiry from the senators on the tax consequences of the SIFL loophole, finding that a wealthy executive would pay roughly between $1,577 and $1,804 less in taxes for a flight from JFK airport in New York City to DCA airport in Washington, D.C. under the SIFL method. The fair market value of that flight could range from $4,500 to $5,112, but under SIFL, that executive would only have to report a value of $235.77.
Van Hollen on Thursday denounced the shamefulness of yet another Trump administration position that rewards the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working people.
"Trump’s priorities revolve around enriching himself and his billionaire friends. While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas, this Administration focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets," said Van Hollen.
"What a disgrace,” he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the Word 'Socialism' Scare You, Progressives Just Want a Country That Works for All
When someone brandishes the word “socialism” like it’s a stink bomb, take a courageous look at the actual ideas—higher taxes on the rich; Medicare for All; or a raise for working people—being proposed.
Aug 28, 2026
The debate over capitalism vs. socialism often looks like a battle of cartoon caricatures: Monopoly Man versus the Marx Monster.
Across the planet there are countless flavors of capitalism and socialism, unique mashups of free markets and government policies. Into this muddle wade the right-wing ideologues who fear the red “socialist” demon hiding in every corner.
If Fox News existed in the 1950s, they would’ve labeled Republican President Dwight Eisenhower a socialist for taxing the wealthy and making broad public investments to expand homeownership, enable debt-free higher education, and build infrastructure and technology that expanded the modern middle class.
Yet, what do these labelers call modern-day China, a country that mints hundreds of billionaires a year and dominates global markets with private production? Is it socialist or capitalist?
All generations now understand that the old American Dream has expired, with 7 in 10 experiencing economic insecurity.
Meanwhile, social democracies, like Canada and the northern European countries, have progressive tax systems and strong social safety nets. Sweden, with its generous welfare state, has higher rates of entrepreneurship than the United States.
These countries also have higher rates of social mobility than the United States—meaning it’s easier for lower-income people to escape poverty and become stable. The American Dream, apparently, has moved offshore.
These welfare states, with their higher taxes on the wealthy, exist comfortably alongside healthy market economies. However, in the United States, whenever a politician proposes that billionaires pay their fair share of taxes so we make public investments in opportunities for everyone else, they are labeled socialist or even communist.
These criticisms conflate a set of policy proposals, most of them quite popular, with an economic system where the government owns the means of production. However, this well-trod attack doesn’t seem to be working anymore, especially for younger generations.
Younger voters see the grotesque inequalities of wealth and power that distort the economy and block opportunity for the non-rich. They witness how large corporations have captured Congress and blocked popular reforms to defend consumers and counter monopolies.
They watch with alarm as billionaire-backed private equity firms buy up healthcare facilities and squeeze consumers in every corner of the economy. They see how both major political parties have been captured by the billionaire donor class and failed to address stagnant wages and rising basic costs.
All generations now understand that the old American Dream has expired, with 7 in 10 experiencing economic insecurity. These folks still hope hard work could lead to a decent life—to own a home, take a vacation, pass opportunities to their children, and retire before they die. They feel the constant stress of knowing they’re one job loss, illness, disability, or divorce away from living in their car.
Without a strong party representing working people’s concerns, political realignments are happening in both parties. A new generation of progressives and a handful of self-described democratic socialists argue the economy should work for everyone, not just the billionaire class.
They believe new technologies—such as AI—should serve everyone, not just billionaire tech bros and their global conglomerates. They believe the government has an important role in expanding healthcare, blocking oligarchy, and breaking up big corporations.
They advocate for expanding affordable housing to aid people struggling to find decent housing in a hyper-speculative market. Instead of subsidizing private developers, they advocate for housing owned by nonprofit organizations, resident cooperatives, and—egads!—government entities, like housing authorities.
These progressives believe we should stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and end tax breaks to the Jeffrey Epstein class. They support investments to help us transition to sustainable energy, lower energy costs, and reduce climate disruption.
The right-wing pundits—and some so-called moderates, too—are hoping that when they trot out the “socialist” bugaboo, your mind will freeze and you’ll start frothing at the mouth. They’re afraid that you will ask why the current system isn’t working and wonder if there are alternatives. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
When someone brandishes the word “socialism” like it’s a stink bomb, take a courageous look at the actual ideas—higher taxes on the rich? Medicare for All? A raise for working people?—being proposed. There might be more common sense than you thought.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Rotten Stench of Elon Musk's Political Money
The mega-billionaire's promise to spend somewhere between $100 and $120 million on congressional races this year shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It should be recognized as an opportunity.
Aug 03, 2026
Elon Musk will be spending $100 million to $120 million in at least eight states to help elect Republicans in November, according to The New York Times.
Musk’s spending is set to begin next month, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, and potentially North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Musk will also spend in House races in states including California, Wisconsin, and Washington.
The money won’t be spent only on TV advertising. Musk’s “America PAC” is lining up firms that focus on knocking on voters’ doors. Fake grassroots.
But Musk’s money shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It’s an opportunity.
A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Recall that Musk spent millions of dollars on a pivotal election for Wisconsin’s highest court in April 2025. It pitted Musk’s candidate — Trump-endorsed former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel — against progressive Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. The winner would determine the supermajority of the court.
Schimel lost, largely due to Musk’s support — which backfired. The public was outraged that the richest person in the world was spending some of his massive wealth on the election. They also recoiled at the wreckage Musk wrought at DOGE. And his unbridled racism.
In Crawford’s victory speech, she acknowledged the significance of Musk’s money to the outcome of the race. “As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin,” she said. “And we won.”
She described the election as a victory over an “unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” adding “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Musk’s support will backfire again this year, in race after race — if voters know about it.
So let’s make it a kind of smell test for any Republican that Musk and his “America PAC” are supporting. A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Keep your nose to the ground. If you get a whiff of Musk, alert your family, friends, neighbors, and associates. If they’re even slightly uncertain about whom to support, the Musk test should convince them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Socialism Is the Compromise Position
Given our scale of inequality, the egalitarian reforms of democratic socialism are only the start of what we should strive for.
Jul 31, 2026
Other than the continual circus in the White House, the most important political story in America may be the resurgence of democratic socialism. Ignited by the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the movement achieved its biggest victory last year when self-described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City. Now, fueled by backlash to the extremist MAGA agenda and multiple ongoing crises, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have claimed 38 electoral wins so far this year and 120,000 active members, making them the largest socialist organization in US history.
Naturally, this has the establishment's hair on fire in both political parties. On the Democratic side, leadership oscillates between snubbing democratic socialists and disowning them outright, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) calling Mamdani’s rise a “gift to the Republicans” that makes Democrats look radical. Centrist-liberal magazine The Atlantic referred to DSA as “a parasite” that was “hijacking the Democratic Party.”
On the Republican side, the hysteria is even more severe. President Donald Trump, who seems quite enamored of Mamdani on a personal level, called him a “100% communist lunatic.” Recently Trump has been trying to resurrect the Red Scare, labeling DSA candidates “hardcore, godless communists” and invoking communism some 94 times in just a few weeks. Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Stephen Miller, connected leftist politicians, communism, and political terrorism into one vast conspiracy and declared it the “fatal cancer of civilization.”
Despite the delirium, many democratic socialist policies are popular, particularly those that expand public services and safety nets for healthcare and childcare. Such ideas only sound radical in a nation grown numb to the extremes of capitalism. But following decades of upward redistribution, worsening public services, deteriorating labor power, and all the other abuses of our current system, democratic socialism isn’t radical at all—it’s a compromise.
Defining “Democratic Socialism”
Like most political labels in America, “socialism” has been thoroughly twisted and misused. In 1952, President Harry Truman remarked that socialism was “a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.” It was a Republican slur for the New Deal, public power, social security, bank deposit insurance, free and independent labor organizations, and “almost anything that helps all the people,” in Truman’s words.
To this day, that’s about as good a definition as any. In America, “socialism” is often used to describe—or denigrate—almost any publicly funded, government-run service: libraries, parks, fire departments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, highways, public schools, safety net hospitals, animal shelters, community pools, and so on. Under this definition, the US military might be the most expensive socialist program in history.
Elites should feel relieved that people are only demanding, say, a few public options for groceries, rather than revolting.
This American concept of socialism, though, bears little resemblance to the theories formulated by Karl Marx. Marx articulated socialism in direct opposition to capitalism, under which individuals or companies own and control land, natural resources, and means of production. Capitalists rent labor—at least in societies where they can’t own it—and fight to make the terms of that rental as favorable to themselves as possible. This tug of war between owners and workers, in Marx’s view, is the central struggle of history. Marx sought to invert that structure, advocating that ownership, control, and the fruits of labor belong to workers, and theorizing that the only way to achieve such a reality was through revolution.
Democratic socialism, then, is also distinct from Marxist socialism. Both may strive for populist control of the political economy, but democratic socialists in America largely pursue their goals through reform, working within existing institutions. Democratic socialism often more closely resembles the Nordic model: a capitalist economy in which government takes a larger role in protecting human rights and guaranteeing certain essential goods and services.
Actually, this compromise of preserving the fundamentals of capitalism while trying to achieve the egalitarian goals of socialism is precisely what more committed Marxists don’t like about democratic socialism. They might argue that capitalism is inherently unsustainable, exploitative, and unreformable, relying as it does on never-ending growth and abuse of labor, and that working within it is doomed to only limited successes at best.
Reforming the Second Gilded Age
Whether or not one agrees with such ideas, it’s a discussion that free people are within their rights to have. Though we often treat capitalism as a national religion, there’s nothing sacred about it. Even the US Constitution is surprisingly agnostic on questions of economic organization. It’s not encoded in our DNA—in fact, we are much more naturally inclined toward cooperation than competition. Humans have a virtually infinite number of ways we can arrange society, and we are in desperate need of rethinking ours.
Because for the last few decades, the American economy has grown ever more off-balance, to the point where many analysts now say we’re in a second Gilded Age. We recently minted the world’s first trillionaire, while about half of us would be wiped out by any major illness, accident, or job loss. Workers have lost power, essentials like housing and healthcare are increasingly out of reach, and practically all the gains of our productivity have been accumulated at the very top, with corporations posting record profits. Billionaires are multiplying their wealth faster than ever, building anti-revolution doomsday bunkers, and plotting to rule their own fiefdoms as CEO-kings.
We live in a society that’s obsessed with law and order for things like shoplifting or overstaying a visa, but largely looks the other way on corporate crimes like pollution, wage theft, and fraud—not to mention war crimes and genocide. The president is a convicted felon who wants you to ignore his decades-long friendship with a child sex trafficker and instead fear and hate the immigrant next door.
In such a system, elites should feel relieved that people are only demanding, say, a few public options for groceries, rather than revolting. The wealthy surely all took note of the public reaction to Luigi Mangione, who is accused of murdering United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on the streets of New York City. Mangione became a cultural icon who was openly celebrated in many circles, making clear the rage simmering within America’s dispossessed.
There’s a reason the progressive California Rep. Ro Khanna refers to a tax on wealth as an anti-revolution tax, or an attempt to save capitalism from itself. Progressive Democrats like Khanna often mediate between capitalist centers of power and the party’s left-wing base, who largely feel fed up with the party’s incremental approach of making small tweaks here and there. Democratic socialism, as practiced in today’s America, is still essentially incrementalism, but they’re much bigger increments.
Such a model works well in places like Finland, Iceland, and Denmark. These countries have high taxes, but they get far more out of them than we do. As a result they are consistently ranked as the happiest countries on Earth, with excellent numbers for education, homelessness, poverty, healthcare, life expectancy, and infant mortality—all areas in which the US, with its profit-first approach to every problem, is lagging behind.
High taxes and a mixed economy also once worked well in the United States. We dug ourselves out of the Great Depression with the New Deal. Government programs brought electricity to rural areas and established safety nets and Social Security. Our middle class boomed after World War II, when taxes were the highest they’ve ever been.
Republicans and Big Business called that socialism, too. They even conspired to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Now, faced with another socialist menace, they’re playing just as dirty.
The Billionaire and Republican Backlash
The rich and powerful pay good money for their political representation, and the main things they expect in return are to be untaxed and unregulated. When Mayor Mamdani announced a pied-a-terre tax on luxury second homes, The Washington Post—which is owned by megabillionaire Jeff Bezos—published a column criticizing Mamdani’s “‘creepy and weird’ attack on success.” Billionaire Steve Roth said on an earnings call, “I consider the phrase ‘tax the rich’... to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs… [the rich]... should be praised and thanked.”
So it goes whenever anything similar is proposed: Socialism punishes success; the rich will flee if we tax them and leave us simple folk immiserated; and the government will take your home, car, TV, coffee machine, and everything else until, eventually, we’re all sitting in the dirt, eating worms and hitting each other with sticks.
There is no limit to the hysteria Republicans can drum up around socialism, no lie so bold that they won’t tell it with a straight face on TV. In 2016, for instance, the right-wing Institute for Policy Innovation accused the Democratic Party of going even beyond full-blown communism for supporting things like higher wages, vacation time, a 30-hour workweek, maternity leave, and universal health insurance—each of which sound like terrific ideas that would improve human lives, and almost none of which, sadly, are actually supported by establishment Democrats.
Rather than push people to the depths of despair while society breaks down all around us, progressives and democratic socialists want to prioritize human needs over the bottomless appetites of corporations and capital.
By design, Americans have come to expect very little from our system. We’re taught to regard the very concept of government as fundamentally incompetent, wasteful, and oppressive, rather than a tool we can take control of and use to improve lives. Despite the popularity of socialistic policies and goals, the word itself remains divisive. Some of those who have the least are the most aggressively anti-socialist. For this reason, there’s an open debate whether the movement should even label itself socialist.
However, public opinion is slowly evolving. Self-identifying as a socialist could have upsides, like signaling loftier aspirations for people who are desperate for change. And since Republicans will call anyone left of Sean Hannity a communist anyway, reclaiming the word could also blunt their attacks if people come to equate socialism with popular reforms like raising taxes on the wealthy and public options for healthcare.
Unfortunately, winning hearts and minds may not be enough. Because if the wealthy are unable to protect their power legally at the ballot box, the Trump administration has already declared its intention to combat democratic socialism with brutality and repression.
According to polls, Trump and the Republicans are heading toward a trouncing in the midterms, particularly in the House. As a result, Trump is already setting the stage for rigging or cancelling the election, using the threat of communism as one of his predicates. Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also been on the offensive, attempting to characterize leftist movements as inherently terroristic and calling on the state to “keep our people safe” from such threats.
Rubio said: “They can call themselves anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist, communist, anarchist or Marxist… It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality and justice liberation.” Leftists, Rubio said, are “an encroaching darkness” and “the enemies of civilization.” Miller said: “The leftist looks at what is beautiful and what is good and what is natural and is filled with envy and hatred… We must stay the course and be completely unflinching in the pursuit of justice against these enemies of civilization.”
These dehumanizing comments echo some of the worst periods in history, including the Red Scare of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Exactly what the administration plans to do is kept vague on purpose. The framework to take extreme actions—effectively criminalizing certain political beliefs—is laid out in National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). Perhaps, if democratic socialism appears too strong on the ballot in November, they will see fit to protect the voters from their own bad decisions.
Society Is in Desperate Need of Rebalancing
While the establishment tries to trigger a panic about democratic socialism, Mamdani remains popular in New York and his brief tenure as mayor has already been, by many measures, a success. There are no gulags, and he hasn’t seized anybody’s home. He’s the first high-profile politician in recent memory to speak to, and start delivering on, people’s desire for more access to dignity, time, and their personal pursuit of happiness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that message is resonating.
Every society has a mix of public and private endeavors. America is no different. The goal of the left is, broadly, to tilt the balance toward public support for education, healthcare, environmental initiatives, jobs programs, and so on. The goal of the right is to eliminate public investments, if not civic life altogether, and let people fend for themselves in a cutthroat social Darwinism. Our challenge as a society is to find a balance that fosters the kind of world we want to live in.
Capitalists will argue that our inequality is a natural consequence of the brilliance and drive of business leaders, that we all benefit from the largesse of the rich and anyone can get a piece of the pie if they work hard enough. But our inequality goes far beyond, say, a brain surgeon owning nicer golf clubs than an op-ed writer. The issue is a rigged system powered by insatiable greed, where a tiny handful own private islands and the masses can’t afford insulin.
Make no mistake: Corporate America wages class war constantly. Profit is their main motivation, and by definition, profit is created by getting more out of a deal than you put in. A little bit may be fine. Most people happily pay extra for good service or a worthy product. But trillions in profit means trillions in unpaid wages, overcharged rent, exorbitant medical bills, unpaid insurance claims, usurious lending, or any number of other ways the rich and powerful squeeze the poor.
In a business-run, profit-oriented society, human needs will inevitably suffer because they are simply not a factor in the decision-making. Libertarian right-wingers will argue that free-market capitalism meets human needs naturally through the invisible hand, but this amounts to a lot of hocus-pocus. If you value a more egalitarian distribution of labor, leisure, comfort, health, education, and happiness, the only way to achieve it is through some form of socialism.
Once you peel back the hype and fearmongering, democratic socialism looks more and more reasonable. Rather than push people to the depths of despair while society breaks down all around us, progressives and democratic socialists want to prioritize human needs over the bottomless appetites of corporations and capital. They want to pool our collective resources, distribute them communally, and work toward a more dignified life for everybody. It wouldn’t actually be socialism, though Republicans will surely call it that—but it could be a start toward something better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trillionaires Are Only Possible Because They Don't Pay Taxes Like Ordinary People
Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today, yet, as things stand, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
Jul 31, 2026
The valuation trends up and down, but one thing’s for sure: Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire this summer. At the height of the SpaceX IPO he was briefly worth around $1.45 trillion.
Then SpaceX stock tanked, rallied, then tanked again. But the most important thing about Musk’s wealth isn’t whether it stays above the 13-figure threshold—it’s that 94% of it comes from not having to pay taxes on unrealized gains.
That’s right: Musk’s fortune effectively comes from not paying taxes.
It’s no exaggeration to say that trillionaires (Musk likely won’t be the last) are creatures of the tax code. They ought to be called “taxillionaires.” If it weren’t for laws that permit the wealthy to endlessly defer paying taxes by keeping their gains unrealized, there would be no trillionaires—and many fewer billionaires.
We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes.
According to Musk’s own account, when he sold his stake in Paypal in 2002, he netted $180 million, invested it all in SpaceX and Tesla, and borrowed to pay his living expenses. To get from $180 million to a trillion today implies annual returns of over 40% (returns that would be considered impossible for ordinary investors).
Allowing these returns to compound untaxed supercharges growth.
Musk paid some taxes along the way, when he exercised stock options or sold some Tesla shares, but any taxes he paid are insignificant compared to his wealth. By contrast, for most working Americans earning a good salary, total state and federal taxes are significant—typically around 40%.
They can put limited amounts in tax-deferred IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like. But most of their savings comes from net paychecks after withholding for federal, state, local, Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare taxes. Musk is effectively exempt from these taxes.
But he doesn’t have to be.
Suppose he were subject to the same taxes on his annual wealth increase that most higher-earning Americans pay on what they make, and had to sell some Tesla and SpaceX shares to pay those taxes. We crunched the numbers based on the latest figures, and found he’d be worth around $47 billion today—rich enough to afford the most lavish lifestyle imaginable, but not a trillionaire, and not richer than the GDP of most countries.
It’s the same story for Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and other multibillionaires.
The vast bulk of their fortunes came from not paying taxes on their wealth as it grew. Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today (although that tiny fraction would still be a huge amount of money). Yet as things stand today, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
In the 2024 elections, Musk was the largest campaign donor, giving $291 million. That’s chump change for him, but it bought unprecedented power: lucrative contracts, the suspension of investigations of Musk’s businesses, access to government data, and the authority to dismantle government programs—including disruptions to foreign aid which are projected to result in over 14 million people dying from preventable diseases.
It’s a vicious cycle of wealth begetting power which begets more wealth, diverting it from the needy and vulnerable. We’re in the grip of unprecedented power accumulated by private, super-rich individuals.
We can check their power by fixing the untaxed wealth problem. We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes. We should adopt sensible policies requiring them to pay their fair share, such as the Billionaires Minimum Income Tax Act introduced in Congress in 2023.
Over the next decade, we will face crisis-level national debt and unmet needs for healthcare and retirement income. That will force us to decide whether to leave the vast pool of billionaire and trillionaire wealth untouched, or tax them like the rest of us to curb their influence and address public needs. The choice is ours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Are We Willing to Actually Tax Billionaires or Only Willing to Talk About It?
The question before us in California is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million people—our friends and neighbors—about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away?
Jul 03, 2026
There are more billionaires in my district and the surrounding area than almost any other Member of Congress. Within fifty miles of my district sits nearly a third of the entire American stock market—over $20 trillion in value—and five companies worth more than a trillion dollars each. For years, I have fought for fairness in our tax policy. If America has been good to you, you must do good for America.
There are 938 billionaires in America. Together they are worth $8.2 trillion. The bill I wrote with Bernie Sanders asks them for 5 percent every year.
This is a simple tax on wealth. Every year, this tax evaluates the total value of a billionaire’s holdings, their stock, their companies, their real estate, and taxes 5 percent of it. Not their income, which they have arranged to be almost nothing. The wealth itself. The same way a family pays property tax on a house whether or not they sell it. We conduct this assessment on individual’s estates already when they die.
This billionaire wealth tax will raise $4.4 trillion over a decade. This is enough to establish a $60,000 salary floor for every public school teacher in America, cap child care at 7 percent of a family’s income, and restore the $1 trillion stripped from Medicaid and the ACA, with a $3,000 check left over for every household under $150,000.
The California Fight
California legislators have proposed a state tax to target similar excessive wealth. A proposition on the November ballot would levy a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s 250 billionaires. Accrued over 5 years, it would raise $100 billion to save health care for 3 million Californians. I am backing it.
Opposing these landmark taxes, Governor Newsom has suggested a “minimum income tax”. The focus of this tax is billionaires’ reported income, as well as the loans they take out to live on. An income tax, not a wealth tax. That is the problem. Newsom goes after that income, but billionaires have very little. Most take no salary at all. They borrow against their stock, live on the loans, and pass the fortune to their children without ever selling a share. The wealth underneath goes untouched.
Bernie and I tax the wealth itself, and our bill raises $4.4 trillion. Newsom’s tax on these borrowed assets only raises 1/44th of that. That’s why the tech oligarchs support Newsom’s proposal. They hope they can trick folks into making the issue go away.
Same billionaires, forty-four times the revenue from Bernie and I’s proposal compared to Newsom’s.
Tax what they own, not what they report.
No Capital Flight
I was criticized for the bill, as well as my support of California’s proposed Billionaire Tax. Many said that the wealth flight from California would devastate our economy. They were wrong. In Q1 of 2026, California received more venture capital investment than the rest of the country combined. Then the billionaires spent millions propping up my primary challenger. He received 6 percent of the vote.
Tax over $50 million
And the tax should not stop at billionaires, it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up, and one already does. Every year it has been introduced, I have cosponsored the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. It starts at $50 million: 2 percent a year on wealth above that line, And it reaches the money inside irrevocable trusts, taxed to the grantor who set them up. Moving a fortune into a trust should not take it off the books from a wealth tax.
Wealth Taxes are the Moral Test of Our Time
Supporters are right to call the fight in California the reverse Proposition 13 of our generation. In 1978, California voted for Prop 13 to cap property taxes, and that anti-tax revolt carried Ronald Reagan to the presidency two years later. This is that revolt in reverse: instead of capping taxes on property, we are taxing the extreme wealth at the top. This is a philosophical fight, and California is the test case for the nation.
So the question is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million Californians about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away? Are we the party of working people, or just the party of the donor class? Are we going to return to the party of FDR, or keep telling ourselves we need to do what the donors want?
Are we willing to tax extreme wealth, or only willing to talk about it?
I know my answer. We cannot have a nation where 938 people grow $1.5 trillion richer in a year while a teacher in my district takes a second job to cover rent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Newsom Does Not Want to Tax Billionaires,' Say Campaigners, 'But Wants You to Think He Does'
"Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook," argues the Billionaire Tax Now campaign as it seeks to counter "5 tricks" being deployed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies.
Jun 27, 2026
Campaigners behind the one-time 5% billionaires wealth tax in California are calling out what they describe as trickery and deception by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who on Friday released a proposal for a national billionaire's income tax even as he actively opposes the effort to tax the wealth of billionaires in the state that he and his party currently control.
"Newsom does not want to tax billionaires," said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign in a statement, "but he wants you to think he does."
As Common Dreams reported Friday, critics of Newsom warn that the governor thinks "he can fool everyone" with his proposal for a national tax on the income of billionaires while simultaneously opposing a wealth tax headed for a referendum vote in November designed to fill a massive healthcare funding gap in the state created by the budget bill passed by Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump last year.
While the so-called "One, Big Beautiful Bill" offered another windfall tax giveaway to super-wealthy individuals and corporations, it eviscerated funding for healthcare and other key social programs nationwide.
The Friday statement from the coalition behind the campaign, headed by SEIU—United Health Wealth, details "5 tricks" that Newsom has already deployed in order to fool voters about the wealth tax in California while concealing what they say are "his real motivations: to continue giving billionaires tax breaks at the expense of working people."
According to the group:
TRICK 1: Pretend to take on billionaires while really giving them a pass.
Over his many months of plainly attempting to sink the California billionaire tax, Governor Newsom has made it clear that he is more interested in protecting billionaires than working people. A federal billionaire tax has already been proposed by US Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna—and while you don’t need to be a political insider to know it would require a profound reshaping of Congress to pass that bill, Newsom has nonetheless failed to endorse it.
TRICK 2: Conveniently say that a federal, not state-based solution is the best way forward on this issue—despite having supported state-based policy solutions in the past.
Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook. It’s just a PR tactic to give himself more cover to oppose the California Billionaire Tax. The Governor has supported state-based solutions to federally-created policy problems in the past—just conveniently not this state-based solution, which would involve a 5% tax on about 200 Californian billionaires who hold $2.2 trillion in wealth to save lives and keep hospitals open.
TRICK 3: Attempt to divide support by saying the California Billionaire Tax is bad policy for not fixing every problem in the state.
It’s pretty simple: the California Billionaire Tax is a direct response to the healthcare cuts facing our state, so the funding goes to healthcare. 90% of funds will prevent ER and hospital closures, and 10% will go toward food assistance and public education.
No, the funding will not go toward housing, 911 operators, and other public services the Governor listed out to try to generate additional opposition—just the massive $100 billion healthcare crisis that is putting patient lives at risk. The fact that this measure doesn’t fix every problem in the Governor’s budget is a problem for the Governor, not a problem with the proposal itself.
TRICK 4: Spread misinformation about the California Billionaire Tax’s impact on Planned Parenthood.
The Governor is hoping you don’t know that the massive federal healthcare cuts in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” gutted funding for California’s Planned Parenthood clinics and that the California Billionaire Tax is the only viable way to generate the funding needed to save this critical reproductive healthcare. Luckily, frontline healthcare workers, including those who work at Planned Parenthood clinics, along with actual Planned Parenthood patients have been hard at work spreading the truth to voters across the state.
TRICK 5: Falsely claim that “one stakeholder” is driving the California Billionaire Tax.
Governor Newsom continues desperately trying to make the California Billionaire Tax sound fringe, when in fact voters consistently support the tax by double-digit margins. The Billionaire Tax Now coalition has a growing army of more than 5,000 volunteers, and submitted over 1.6 million signatures—more than double the number needed to qualify for the ballot. The tax is supported by elected officials including US Senator Bernie Sanders Representative Ro Khanna, and Senator Chris Murphy, and community and labor groups including Teamsters California, AFSCME California, CIR, UNITE HERE Local 11 and Local 30, AFT Local 1521, Oxfam America, Our Revolution, CA, Color of Change, and Democratic Socialists of America–CA. Does that sound like “one stakeholder”?
The launch of Newsom's proposal for a national income tax, his team acknowledged, comes as the governor considers a run for president in 2028.
Citing the threat of capital flight and billionaires fleeing California for states with friendlier tax codes, Newsom argues that the fight for a tax on the super-rich "belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place."
However, as the campaign behind the state-level tax points out and studies have shown, the mythical threat of the wealthy packing their bags has been shown to be largely that—threats and a myth.
Nadia Rahman, an activist and organizer in San Francisco, was among those urging people not to be duped by the Newsom's position on the California ballot initiative.
"Do not be fooled," Rahman warned. "Newsom is an avowed incrementalist pitching a “national billionaires tax” to have something to deflect to when he runs for president and is questioned about why he worked so hard to kill the wealth tax in his home state of California in his final act as Governor."
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