U.S. billionaires have grown nearly one-third richer during the pandemic: Oxfam - MarketWatch
By: Levi Sumagaysay (MarketWatch)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
People participate in a "March on Billionaires" event on July 17, 2020 in New York City. A new Oxfam report makes the case for taxing the rich.
Wealth inequality in the United States is "more extreme and dangerous than income inequality" and could be alleviated by a federal wealth tax, a new report says.
The nation's billionaires are almost a third richer than they were at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, according to new calculations by the global charity Oxfam, which published the report this week. The number of U.S. billionaires is almost 60% higher than it was a decade ago, reaching more than 700, Oxfam said.
"The huge rise in pandemic wealth followed trillions of dollars being injected into financial markets to avert their collapse," the report said. "This fresh cash, while vital to keeping economies afloat, ended up with the ultra-wealthy who were able to ride a stock market surge, without the guardrails of fairer taxation to share that wealth more equitably."
Meanwhile, Oxfam pointed to a "permanent underclass" in the nation, saying that almost a third of the U.S. labor force earns less than $15 an hour, with half of all working women of color earning less than that. In addition, the racial wealth gap has grown wider since the 1980s and is close to what it was in the 1950s, the report said.
Ahead of Tax Day next week, Oxfam presented five main arguments for a wealth tax:
- It would be a source of new revenue that could be invested in policies that help working families and women: Oxfam said a proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, to tax billionaires alone would raise $114 billion annually — enough to reinstate the expanded child tax credit that gave qualifying families up to $3,600 per child in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan. That credit was shown to have reduced child poverty rates amid job losses, inflation and other economic concerns.
- It would help narrow the racial wealth gap: Eighty-six percent of total wealth in the U.S. is owned by white families, while Black, non-Hispanic families own just 3%, according to figures by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) cited by Oxfam. The report also cited research by various scholars who say that taxing the wealthy would help reduce racial wealth inequality, because white families are five times more likely than Black families to receive huge gifts and inheritances. "In the absence of progressive taxation, this creates a dynastic form of wealth, especially for the ultra-wealthy," Oxfam said in its report. In addition, 92% of families worth over $30 million are white, non-Hispanic families, though they account for 59% of the U.S. population.
- It would help with the climate crisis: Oxfam cited two main arguments for this. First, the wealthiest people make the climate crisis worse through their investments and emissions, with "the investments of a sample of 125 of the richest billionaires [resulting] in a million times more emissions than the average person," Oxfam said. Second, revenue from a wealth tax could help fund replacement of energy systems in the U.S., and could also be used to help victims of climate-induced harms like cyclones, famines and droughts around the world, the organization said.
- It would reduce the federal debt: Tax cuts since 2001 have added $10 trillion to the debt, according to figures by the Center for American Progress cited in the report. More than 80% of the tax cuts passed from 2000 to 2018 "went to the richest 40%, and most of it went to the richest 5%," Oxfam said, citing an ITEP analysis. Oxfam added that proposed social-spending cuts to resolve standoffs over U.S. government debt usually disproportionately affect people living in poverty, namely women, girls and people of color.
- It would help protect democracy from oligarchy: "The ultra-wealthy and corporations now play a vastly outsized role in determining public policy in this country," Oxfam said. For example, corporate lobbying last year rose to $3.5 billion, and accounted for 87% of all lobbying. Among the consequences of this, according to the report, are the preservation of tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, still no movement on the federal minimum wage, and no reins on corporate stock buybacks.
Democratic lawmakers have long argued that the wealthiest Americans don't pay their fair share in taxes, particularly after a 2021 ProPublica investigation of billionaires' tax returns. A number of Democratic tax proposals in recent years have taken aim at unrealized capital gains of the ultra-wealthy, though some tax-law experts have raised concerns about the constitutionality of that approach.
President Joe Biden last year called for a "billionaire minimum income tax" that would require households worth more than $100 million to pay at least a 20% tax rate on their full incomes, including on unrealized gains. His budget proposal this year called for a 25% minimum tax on households worth more than $100 million. A separate 2021 proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called for taxing billionaires' unrealized capital gains to pay for Biden's later-shelved Build Back Better agenda.
Proposals to hike taxes on the wealthy have drawn Republican ire. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, for example, criticized Biden's latest budget for what he called "its reckless taxes and out-of-control spending," denouncing it as "a roadmap to fiscal ruin."
Some U.S. billionaires, like Microsoft Corp. MSFT, -0.15% co-founder Bill Gates, Tesla Inc. TSLA, -1.46% Chief Executive Elon Musk and billionaire hedge-fund manager Leon Cooperman, have also pushed back against wealth-tax proposals, saying that they already pay their share of taxes; that they're being vilified; and that such taxes could be illegal.
Other billionaires, however, have voiced support for such proposals: George Soros, Abigail Disney and more than a dozen other ultra-wealthy individuals wrote in a 2019 blog post that a wealth tax would be good for America, citing some of the same reasons Oxfam laid out in its report.
In total, Oxfam said, an annual net wealth tax could raise $582.6 billion each year by taxing more than just billionaires and using marginally higher rates: "2% for wealth above $5 million, 3% above $50 million, and 5% above $1 billion."
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
We had this period of great stress, tension, and apprehension, during which most Americans suffered some sort of serious disruption to their lives, not to mention the millions and millions of illnesses, and what do we learn. The rich used the crisis to get much richer.
Why do we stand for this ? Sheep?
"The number of U.S. billionaires is almost 60% higher than it was a decade ago, reaching more than 700, Oxfam said"
I suspect that many of that 700 or so rich people would move themselves and their assets out of the US to more friendly shores should the tax burden becomes more usurious
This is just another example of creeping communism should it ever become reality.
"From each according to his ability...to each according to his need" Or something like that. Yeah....that's really worked out well, hasn't it.
At some point, even the Disney corporation would rebel.
Billionaires could afford to forfeit 5% of their fortune to the greater good. 5% of 1 billion dollars is 20 million. After paying the "wealth tax" the rich person would still have 980 million dollars. Let's get real about how "unfair" this would be.
Ever stop to think about just how much of that "wealth" is on paper only and not liquid?
Are you trying to say that wealth "on paper" doesnt actually exist?
Who determines what is the "greater good"? And what's with taxing unrealized gains? Wouldn't that amount to double taxation?
Doesn't "unrealized gains" mean that you don't actually have the increase yet unless you sell and then it becomes realized and is taxed. How will the IRS compute unrealized gains for artwork, antiques, vintage cars, wine etc.?
Tell us why that paper wealth exists....and why it should be taxed.
Are you comparing it to an appraised value for property tax purposes?
The mob, who else....
There have been past discussions on this subject, seems it has to raise it's head every few months. Last time I asked how would it work as the unrealized gains are only numbers on paper and not cash in the bank so in order to raise the cash to pay those taxes a person would need to sell some of that stock. Now we all know that if too many shares are dumped on the market at the same time there are fewer able to purchase those shares so the value of stock goes down. Does the individual get to pay taxes based on the lower amount he sold it for or the higher amount prior to sales? And if the stock loses value at the end of the following year does the person get a refund based on what was paid the prior year or is that just lost money and he now pays taxes based on the value of the stock currently, which would definitely fall under the definition of double taxation as he's already paid tax on that stock.
So could you... if in fact any of that money would ever be used for "greater good".
Is it though? Are you sure?
Or not.
Yes, yes, we get it. It's completely "fair" for you to seize other people's money and completely "unfair" to allow them to keep it.
You have exceeded the capacity of the conversation here.
Another article about pathetic losers who are upset that people are smarter and more successful than them in everyway.
The very rich get LOTS of help. Don’t buy into this bullshit that they’re all just smart go-getters who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Take this guy:
Super rich entrepeneur, right? We should all just be like him, right?
His companies have received literally billions (with a B) in government subsidies.
Any success builds on what came before and receives a lot of help from the rest of society. When a business explodes with its own success (as with Musk) there’s nothing wrong with society seeking to channel some of that wealth back into other people who need help.
Holy shit, you have no idea how things work do you? Why did the government give him Subsides? I will give you a hint, the government wanted to promote electric car buying, so they gave subsides to buyers for purchasing an electric car. this kept costs down and promoted behavior that the government approves. All electric car manufacturers had these available.
Elon Musk built his wealth on his own, he did not inherit it.
So we agree he got LOTS of help. Just like I said.
Great. And so now, what if the government wants to promote housing, food, clothing, and medical care for all its citizens?
“Oh no! Fuck those people! Government can’t be coming in here and taking money from good rich folks. We can’t have government shuffling money around to help the poor. That’s just not right!”
The amazing thing is that anyone susceptible to a wealth tax would still be very wealthy after they paid the tax. And still there are irrational complaints.
There is if we're just going to leave them in a state where they'll always need that help.
Again not worth the effort. Worthless takers aren't going to be anything but worthless takers.
We already have those things for the worthless takers.
Currently the US Census Bureau says 37.9 million Americans live in poverty. This does not count millions more who are on the edge of poverty or may be technically in poverty but don’t trigger official measures. This, despite living in the richest country on Earth.
Debating back and forth about taxation policy or fairness is a red herring. The bottom line is the current extreme maldistribution of wealth is bad for the economy, and bad for society. Civilizations come together so that the people can work together for all, not so some small handful can become exceedingly wealthy while large minorities (or even a majority) of the population live in poverty.
It’s inevitable that some will have more than others, but hoarding while others starve should never be tolerated by a civilized society. Sadly, if rich people won’t do the right thing, they must sometimes be compelled to do it.
Among Americans aged 12 years and older, 37.309 million were current illegal drug users (used within the last 30 days) as of 2020.
If any of the 37.9 million are part of the 37.3 million they can go fuck themselves. Nobody should steal from one to give to another.
NCDAS: Substance Abuse and Addiction Statistics [2023] (drugabusestatistics.org)
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on Newstalkers.
This is exactly the toxic attitude that destroys a civilization. And we see it in a lot of people who purport to be Christians. No empathy. No charity. None of the unconditional leave exemplified by Jesus. Just a whole lot of “fuck everybody else but me.”
So what i thought was true, you never read your own comments.
Actually I read my own comments all the time, because I want to see if there are any spelling mistakes so I can correct them.
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
2 Thessalonians 3:10
Then obviously that isn't the dumbest thing you have read, you post multiple award winners daily.
oooh. you snappy !
See, there's one right there. and there is an extra space before the (!) Proof reading failure?
Another attempt to cherry pick scripture to justify cruelty. Exactly what I was talking about.
There’s nothing in the context of Paul’s writing to suggest that he thought food should be withheld from those in need. The above line is a message to those unwilling to work. That is, if you can help the group, but are unwilling, you probably shouldn’t take from the group. It’s not some kind of excuse to those with wealth who could help the needy, but don’t. Jesus didn’t put conditions on helping people, and neither did Paul.
I like a little space around my exclamation points for emphasis.
And still yet haven't found the apostrophe key.................................
Whatever john
I dont use many apostrophes because I am in a hurry. You dont have trouble understanding what I am saying do you?
the same principle applies when people dont capitalize
100% correct.
More than that, it's specifically directed at members of that early church and ONLY those members.
No, but they also never said "Go tax your rich neighbor and give it to your poor one". Believers are commanded to help the poor, not compel others to do so or outsource it to some government bureaucracy.
Yet there is time to reread for spelling mistakes.
You are confusing need with lazy fuckers who won't work
Nor did he advocate using government to steal to support others. like you are doing, you want to steal and give to another. no matter how you phrase or try to justify it, it is stealing, so take your hypocrisy somewhere else/
Richest has differing metrics but if you divide GDP by population, I think that we are the 7th richest following:
That’s part of our problem. No one is interested in dividing the wealth among the population. A microscopic percentage of our population controls almost all that wealth. I wouldn’t divide it up evenly, or anything like that, but if we really come together as a civilization for the common good, we need to do better.
What if the rich don't want to give up their wealth to a group of worthless takers who voted for someone who promised to steal the riches money for them? Do we take it anyway be force like jackbooted thugs? do we imprison them? or better just execute them and steal it all? What lengths are you willing to go?
Maybe there is some soothing tea blend that can help you calm down.
Yeah, those poor billionaires! They’re really under threat, aren’t they? Your compassion for them is so inspiring - especially in light of your total lack of compassion for those “worthless takers” out there.
I didn't say i don't have compassion, the only thing your comment proves is you're not worth the effort.
Yes john, the rich are all criminals, that's why worthless drug abusing assholes want their money to balance the scales, it's not because they are too lazy or stupid to earn it themselves.
You didn’t need to. “They can go fuck themselves” followed by the “Biblical” reason we shouldn’t help them, followed by your deep concern for the bank accounts of billionaires pretty much said it for you.
That is because poor people having children. parents who make stupid decisions aren't going to get smarter because you give them stolen money John. Take those children away from the worthless takers and sterilize them, the parents. then the children might have a decent chance.
People who abuse drugs can go fuck themselves if they are in poverty, context matters. To the honest at least.
We're talking about the handful of very rich American....700 more or less....according to the story.
What about the rich foreigners who own a vast amount of assets in the USA....how do we get them to pay their "fair share"
Should these undemocratic seizures be called what they are...the illegal confiscation and/or taxation of the assets and property of others.
It sure seems like these tactics would be considered to be socialistic, or even communistic.
Political and economic systems exist on a spectrum. No system is purely capitalist, socialist, or any other “-ist.” Civilization, by its very nature, is part socialist and communist. It has to be or it’s not a civilization - it’s just anarchy.
But we have a terrible practice in this country. Some people dismiss the very idea of lifting up the poor and the hungry by pretending there is a greater threat from us “going socialist” or “turning communist.” It’s just an excuse to be greedy and selfish.
Our economic system, which makes it possible for billionaires to exist, could not flourish without the existence of poverty. At some point poor people will take any job they can get, and this necessity is what makes a poverty wage minimum wage possible. This is known as the wage race to the bottom (pay people as little as possible). This is our system. Therefore it is only logical that the most successful should be taxed to make life better for the poor.
Let's play a game, where is the poors responsibility in this? do they have any? of is it the responsibility of the rich to support them?
It depends on what kind of society you want to have.
So the poor have no responsibility? It is not the riches responsibility to support the poor, unless they choose to, in what way they want.
That's not true.
I guess we're going to ignore the level of skill (or lack thereof) of the employees in question.
The idea that everyone can have a good paying job is nonsense. If everyone made 60,000 dollars a year, or more, $60,000 would be poor. Jobs that were "good paying" wouldnt be good paying any more if everyone had one.
There is no such things as capitalism without poverty, never has been never will be.
You said poverty. That's not how poverty is calculated. Warning, there is math involved.
Do you want to talk about "poor" or "poverty"?
You've said poverty again, although I'm now thinking you don't know what that is.
In any case, your wealth envy is starting to show.
Now you're catching on.
If 60,000 dollars was the income floor the inflation adjusted cost of a minimum food diet would be a lot more than it is now.
Your endless desire to talk down to people has shown for a long time now.
What alternative economic system systemically avoids poverty?
I'd rather deal with the one we have than pose pointless questions.
Pointless? You want to stay with our current system?
That is not how that works. That's not how any of that works.
If you raise the level of your posts, I won't be able to talk down to you, now will I?
How do you want to measure the value of labor? Should the federal government establish wage windows by job by region?
Davis Bacon?
Well first of all, who doesn’t like bacon? And so what if the drives up the cost of bacon, it’s not like it’s our money, it’s federal dollars.
The combined net wealth of all the billionaires in the US is 4 trillion dollars, if the government steals every penny and doesn't skim any off the top that is approx. 100,000 per poor person, so what are we going to do after that year? or the next?
Taxation is not theft. Read something for god's sake.
John, it's taxation to support the government, ITS FUCKING THEFT IF YOU STEAL FROM ONE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER! you can try to hide the hypocrisy all you want, but facts are facts.
Exactly, then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
Through taxation and social safety net, it is government that "takes" from one and gives to another.
I’ve supplied several facts, when are you going to offer an intelligent response to a comment?
You have to give the worthless takers credit, scamming WIC and welfare for pennies is no longer enough, they have now figured out that they can vote for the rich to support them, this way they still get to sit on their asses and produce nothing while stealing the labor from others.