Skip to main content

New top story from Time: To Build Back Better, Tax Ultra-Wealthy Families Like Ours

https://ift.tt/2Y1lvIB

After a summer of speculation, the contours of the deal needed to pass President Joe Biden’s popular “Build Back Better” agenda are becoming clear. To win key votes, Congress will have to find fresh sources of revenue to match new spending. Fortunately, there is an economically sound, overwhelmingly popular path that the President is endorsing: requiring ultra-wealthy families like ours to pay more in taxes.

Doing so would mean reforming a tax code that allows the wealthiest to build and maintain fortunes without paying their share in taxes. Ultra-wealthy families further reduce their tax burdens to a pittance by deferring sale of their appreciated assets, borrowing against those assets and structuring their charitable giving. From 2014 to 2018, America’s 25 wealthiest people amassed a combined $401 billion, but in some years paid zero federal income tax, according to ProPublica. The Biden Administration calculates that America’s richest 400 families pay an average annual income tax rate of just 8.2%.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Billionaires generate headlines, but a larger number of American families worth hundreds of millions—including ours—enjoy similar benefits. In 2018, a family in the most common income bracket (adjusted gross income of $50,000 to $75,000) paid average federal income taxes of $4,866. If their tax burden (relative to wealth) had been the same as our own, they would have paid less than $400.

Unless Congress acts, those who can afford to pay the most will continue to pay nothing, or relatively little, shortchanging urgent priorities. Unlike some, we do not view the existence of billionaires as a policy failure. But as investors, we see the tiny effective tax rates paid by the ultra-wealthy undermining innovation, competitive capitalism and ultimately U.S. democracy. A status quo in which people who work for paychecks pay more in taxes, proportionately, than the wealthiest Americans is driving cynicism and kneecapping our national ambition.

Recent developments suggest this status quo could soon change. Last week, Biden lent his support to a billionaire’s income tax—a new tax on currently untaxed investment income for anyone whose wealth tops $1 billion. He did so as Senate and House leadership announced a framework to fully pay for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, which contains much of the Build Back Better agenda.

While income from wages is taxed immediately, many kinds of investment income are not taxed until assets are sold—if ever. Unlike most Americans, billionaires do not need wages or salaries. Instead, many use investment income to help fund their lifestyles by borrowing against appreciated assets at extremely low rates without paying much in income taxes. Taxing billionaires’ untaxed investment income would raise hundreds of billions for public investments such as high-speed internet, quality child care and clean drinking water. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has championed this proposal. Various House members have supported a one-time version of the tax.

Read more: The Pandemic Made the Top 1% Richer. Why We Need a Wealth Tax

In addition to a billionaire’s income tax, Congress should include a small annual tax of 2% on fortunes above $50 million to ensure that families like ours also pull their weight. That measure, which Senators including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have advocated for, would raise hundreds of billions annually to sustain economic growth. Wealthy countries including Switzerland and Norway have implemented versions of a wealth tax successfully, and it would be relatively cheap to administer across the roughly 100,000 U.S. households who would pay it.

Lawmakers should include both of these revenue provisions in the final reconciliation bill. They are smart policy and smart politics. Among Democrats, Republicans, and independents, few issues attract more support than raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy. An overwhelming majority (71%) of Americans supports an annual wealth tax on fortunes above $50 million, including 57% of Republicans. More than 60% of people with more than $1 million in investable assets support a wealth tax. Many billionaires even support it. In 1999, a certain former president currently residing in Florida proposed to tax himself with a wealth tax.

Including taxes on billionaires and ultra-millionaires dramatically increases support for infrastructure and other Build Back Better investments. Biden tweeted, amid the ongoing negotiations, that he was “sick and tired of the super-wealthy and giant corporations not paying their fair share in taxes.” It appears that voters, including those in crucial states, agree.

In West Virginia, funding the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill with a billionaire’s income tax increases support from even (48% in favor, 47% oppose) to 2-1 in favor (65% in favor, 29% opposed)—a bipartisan supermajority. In Arizona, likely voters support the reconciliation bill when funded by a billionaire income tax by a 39-point margin (67% in favor, 28% opposed). These states are home to Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, respectively, whose votes will be needed to pass any final agreement.

It’s popular, powerful politics for a simple reason: higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy can pay for urgent, shared needs without overburdening anyone. Less than 1,000 Americans would pay a billionaire’s income tax. Only one-twentieth of the richest 1% would pay the annual tax on fortunes over $50 million. Taxes like these on billionaires and ultra-millionaires wouldn’t damage their quality of life—it certainly wouldn’t hurt ours—and no one who wasn’t already an ultra-millionaire would pay a cent under either policy.

Taxing America’s wealthiest citizens is productive and patriotic, not punitive. Improved roads and railways, safer neighborhoods and high-quality schools in every zip code boost economic freedom and allow working people to build wealth of their own. Foundations bearing the names of billionaire families frequently advocate for government action on productive investments like health care, education and climate change. Taxing a fraction of the fortunes of billionaire families would pay for scaling the most effective solutions in a way that philanthropy cannot.

For those worried about a backlash, trust us: There may be some whining and bluffing, but a wealth tax won’t hinder the drive of the wealthiest to invest in entrepreneurs. Ultra-wealthy people won’t renounce their citizenship en masse. Our family’s relative tax burden will still be light; billionaires’ will be manageable, to say the least.

Not everyone agrees. In response to ProPublica’s report, billionaire Carl Icahn asked incredulously, “Do you think a rich person should pay taxes no matter what?” For Americans who prefer economic freedom to free-riding, the answer should be a resounding “Yes!”

All of our wealth, in one way or another, is built on investments our country has already made. Additional investments will empower more Americans to compete in the global economy, strengthen America’s ability to compete with China, and give the wealthiest investors more reason to create jobs at home. We can pay for solutions to short- and long-term challenges without asking wage earners, small-business owners or future generations to pick up the tab.

Voters across the political spectrum view a system that asks Americans with massive fortunes to contribute so little to America’s future as fundamentally broken. They are right. Our estate attorneys might not thank us for pointing that out—but our grandchildren will.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New top story from Time: How 3 Key In the Heights Scenes Were Reimagined From Stage to Screen

https://ift.tt/3iIBhAh When director Jon M. Chu first saw the musical In the Heights on Broadway in 2008, his imagination whirred to life with possibilities. “Imagine if this was in a tunnel and the tunnel lights up?” he remembers thinking while sitting in the theater. “Imagine if you could look through a window of somebody dreaming, and the community could be reflected in the reflection?” More than a decade later, Chu is bringing these reveries to life as the director of the musical’s film adaptation, which arrived in theaters and on HBO Max on June 11. While other recent film-to-stage adaptations — like Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom and One Night in Miami — have leaned into the intimate, contained aesthetic of theatrical performances, Chu’s In the Heights has the ambition and scale of the most epic blockbuster films, complete with hundreds of extras and dancers, vibrant animated graphics, gravity-defying Fred Astaire-inspired dance numbers, and plenty of slick camerawork ...

New top story from Time: Germany Has Officially Recognized Colonial-Era Atrocities in Namibia. But For Some, Reconciliation Is a Long Way Off

https://ift.tt/3fVRkaO The German government formally recognized colonial-era atrocities against the Herero and Nama people in modern-day Namibia for the first time, referring to the early 20th century massacres as “genocide” on Friday and pledging to pay a “ gesture to recognize the immense suffering inflicted.” “In light of the historical and moral responsibility of Germany, we will ask Namibia and the descendants of the victims for forgiveness,” said German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in a statement , adding that the German government will fund projects related to “reconstruction and the development” of Namibia amounting to €1.1 billion ($1.3 billion). The sum will be paid out over 30 years and must primarily benefit the descendants of the Herero and Nama, Agence France-Presse reported . [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] Although it’s a significant step for a once colonial power to agree such a deal with a former colony, there’s skepticism among some experts and ob...

US Capitol breached by Trump supporters, woman killed; Joe Biden says 'dark moment' https://ift.tt/3oo7Za2

In an "unprecedented assault" on democracy in America, thousands of angry supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol and clashed with police, resulting in casualty and multiple injuries and interrupting a constitutional process to affirm Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election.

'Situation not normal, don't lower guard': Delhi's 1st COVID patient cautions people https://ift.tt/35GmCxs

As many continue to take leeway during the festive season, Delhi's coronavirus patient has cautioned people to stay indoors as much as possible because "situation is not back to normal". Rohit Datta, who was diagnosed with the infection on March 1, appealed to the masses to "not lower guard" by getting into a casual festive mode. 

New top story from Time: The Security Perimeter Around the Capitol Starts to Recede — and Washington Feels a Little More Normal

https://ift.tt/3ssgaEo This article is part of the The DC Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox every weekday. Washington isn’t a city particularly known for its rationality. We do overreaction better than most, and that talent is rivaled only by underreaction. Passions fuel far too much public policy, personalities dictate what is possible and personal relationships often triumph over pragmatism. It’s something I usually bemoan and curse under my breath — or, increasingly, in this newsletter. So you’ll forgive a moment of indulgent irrationality and some merriment. For, you see, the fencing around the U.S. Capitol has come down. Well, not all of it. And the barriers that remain don’t have an expiration date and may never get one. But at least some of the garish barricades that went up in response to the deadly failed insurrection on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 have been dismantled. The razor-wire on its top is gone, too...

New top story from Time: Our Eyes on the Virus: Why We Still Need Widespread Rapid Testing Even With Vaccines

https://ift.tt/3i5MoTN The vaccines are here. Why do we still need testing? Testing is our eye on the virus. Without testing, we can’t see where it is or where it is going. As fall and winter set in, outbreaks will again occur, sparked by the unvaccinated. And most people become infectious before they know they are infected. Frequent and accessible rapid testing is a tool that if deployed last summer and fall would have saved 100,000 lives. The U.S. missed the opportunity to use frequent rapid testing to stop individuals from unintentionally spreading the lethal SARS-CoV-2 virus to our most vulnerable and avert the horrific winter surge. By rapid tests, I mean the tests that an individual can conduct without a laboratory (ideally in the privacy of their own home) with results given in real-time. There are two types: rapid antigen tests, which look for the virus’s proteins and detect infectious levels of virus. The other lets you know you’ve been infected: rapid molecular...

FOX NEWS: Toddler admitted into American Mensa has an IQ of 146, makes history as youngest member A 2-year-old girl has just made history as the youngest member of American Mensa.

Toddler admitted into American Mensa has an IQ of 146, makes history as youngest member A 2-year-old girl has just made history as the youngest member of American Mensa. via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/3yHFGc7

New top story from Time: The Most Powerful Court in the U.S. is About to Decide the Fate of the Most Vulnerable Children

https://ift.tt/34relNF When child custody cases come before family courts, judges endeavor to base their rulings on the best interests of the child. Overall, the court is less interested in which parent might have the most right to the children than in how best to help the children thrive. The Supreme Court might now be walking a very similar line. It is on the verge of deciding a landmark case that could have a profound impact on the more than 400,000 vulnerable children who find themselves in the U.S. foster care system. Its ruling could also have major implications for LGBTQ rights, religious liberty and nondiscrimination laws across America. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , was sparked when the city said it would no longer contract with a faith-based agency, Catholic Social Services (CSS), to provide foster services after a 2018 Philadelphia Inquirer article revealed that it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster pare...

New top story from Time: 2021 Could Be the Biggest Wedding Year Ever. But Are Guests Ready to Gather?

https://ift.tt/3wC3WKU I was supposed to get married in September. Well, technically, as my husband would be quick to correct me, I did get legally married in September 2020 in the courtyard of our New York City apartment building in front of our parents, a handful of friends who lived nearby and a naked guy standing in the window of the building next door, who, I am told, cheered when we recessed. The 13 people in attendance wore masks I’d ordered with our wedding date printed on them, sat in distanced lawn chairs and sipped gazpacho I’d blended and individually bottled that morning in a frenzy of health-safety panic. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] This was not the wedding of 220 people that we had originally planned. A few months into the pandemic, we made the call to delay our big celebration until 2021. We were hardly alone. In a typical year, Americans throw 2 million weddings, according to wedding website the Knot. Last year, about 1 million couples in the U.S. post...

New top story from Time: Constance Wu and Jenny Han on the Power of Inclusive Storytelling

https://ift.tt/3wFvLCm In conversation with senior editor Lucy Feldman as part of TIME’s “Uplifting AAPI Voices” summit , actor Constance Wu and To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before author Jenny Han discussed their groundbreaking work both in front of and behind the camera, the need for nuanced Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) representation and their love for a good rom-com. TIME: When the film adaptations of Crazy Rich Asians and To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before first came out, there was a whole generation of Asian Americans who had never seen ourselves reflected like that. What did those films mean to you? And how did they change things? [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] Wu: I was in a unique position, having that happen to me with two big-profile projects: first there was Fresh Off the Boat, which was seeing yourself represented on network American TV. That was something that really hadn’t happened in a long time. Crazy Rich Asians was on a bigger sc...