Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, and other "progressive" Democrats recently proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million; a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion.
They state that the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act aims at "reining in a widening U.S. wealth gap."
According to Warren, "The ultra-rich and powerful have "rigged the rules" in their favor so much that the top 1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began."
Warren's statement implies that anybody who is "ultra-rich" has acquired the entirety of their "ultra-wealth" by "rigging the rules" — that their wealth is therefore "ill-gotten."
But if the"ultra rich" 1% have been looting the system to the detriment of the 99%, why impose a piddling 2% or 3% tax? If restitution is in order, returning 2% or 3% is not restitution. Warren and Sanders should be howling that "rigged rule wealth" be taxed at a rate of 100%. Or is it okay to steal a billion dollars, if you share 3% of the loot with the U.S. government?
But I suggest that there are even better reasons for imposing a 100% tax on "ultra-wealth." "Ultra-wealth" gives "the 1%" anti-democratic political power. The 1% can use their ultra-wealth to self-fund their political campaigns. And worse, once they buy their way into Congress, they make tax laws to help themselves and their cronies, and to acquire personal fortunes while holding public office that they never could amass on the salaries of their office.
Take a look at Illinois. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has purported net worth of $400 million. Pritzker, a Democrat, has a reputed net worth of $3.4 billion. They both bought themselves governorships.
And what about our esteemed members of Congress. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, here are the 10 members with the highest estimated wealth in 2018: Mark Warner, D-Virgina, $214.1 million; Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, $189.3 million; Paul Mitchell, R-Michigan, $179.6 million; Vernon Buchanan, R-Florida, $157.2 million; Chris Collins, R-New York, $154.5 million; Don Beyer, D-Virginia, $124.9 million; Nancy Pelosi, D-California, $114.7 million; Dianne Feinstein, D-California, $87.9 million; Suzan DelBene, D-Delaware, $79.4 million; and Fred Upton, R-Michigan, $79 million.
Fifty members of Congress have a net worth of $10.7 million or greater.
According to an OpenSecrets.org report (April, 23, 2020), "a majority of lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires." Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, is now the richest at $260 million. Scott bought/won an election after spending $64 million of his own money. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, with a net worth of $137 million, "donated" $10.5 million to obtain his office. Sen. Matt Romney, R-Utah, has a $174 million stash.
Between 2004 and 2020, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's wealth grew from $3 million to $34 million while Speaker Pelosi's grew from $41 million to $114 million. But even the poor get richer in Congress. Colin Peterson, D-Minn., chair of the House Agriculture Committee was worth $123,000 in 2008; now, he has net assets averaging $4.2 million.
Forbes estimated former President Donald Trump's wealth to be $2.5 billion. In 2016, he donated $66 million to his own campaign (but nothing in 2020!) Mike Bloomberg donated $1.1 billion to his 2020 campaign, while Tom Steyer gave $342 million.
If you wanted to be president, could you donate $1.1 billion to your own campaign?
So, if you really want to "even the playing field" in American politics, the proposal by Warren and Sanders won't do it. Money is power. You and I can't spend $28 million to buy political ads. But that's what the Silicon Valley's "ultra-rich" did to elect a Democrat in Texas.
If they really want "equality," they should be proposing a 100% excise tax on accumulated wealth over $2 million and a 100% graduated income tax rate on personal incomes of over $250,000.
If all "loot" derived by "rigging the rules" is taxed at the rate of 100%, "rigging the rules" to enable looting become pointless.
Better yet, it would effectively prevent "public servants" from becoming "rich" while in public office.
And one other benefit: All the ultra-rich who run Facebook, Twitter and other social medial platforms, who have used their wealth and power to trample the First Amendment speech rights of their fellow Americans, would suddenly find themselves as poor as the rest of us.
Of course, such taxes might permanently destroy our economy, but when has that ever bothered our "solons on the hill."
They could call their tax "The Ill-gotten Gains and Salvation of the Democracy Revenue Act." And unless inflation sets in, a person should get on reasonably well with $2 million in the bank and and annual income of $250,000.
The real beauty of my proposal is that it snags millionaire demagogues like Warren and Sanders. Think of me as a "progressive" conservative reaching across the aisle.
First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 19, 2021
Copyright 2021
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment