Wealth Tax

 Wealth Tax

At a time when the ultrawealthy are amassing historic and dangerous levels of wealth, some propose a federal wealth tax. The  debt-ceiling crisis we are facing in mid-March is a direct result of giving tax breaks to the ultrawealthy. On February 12^th  House Republicans put forth a draft budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that would unequally benefit the wealthy while proposing $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP food stamps. While Social Security benefits cannot be cut through the reconciliation process, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can.

We have surpassed the 1920s Gilded Age extreme wealth concentration in The United States. Since billionaires are almost all white and mostly male, wealth is also highly stratified by race and gender. Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth.

At a time when millions of Americans are working two or three jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country (Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos) own more wealth than the bottom half of all  the American people. The U.S. ranks sixth from the bottom among peer nations in the share of resources spent on public needs (less than a third of GDP). In contrast, European countries put closer to half of their economy into societal investments. That’s why European nations have universal health care, universal parental leave, and lower poverty. These social safety net programs pay off. People also live longer throughout western Europe than here.

Over the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase in its wealth, while the bottom half of American society has actually lost $900 billion in wealth. This is a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much. For the sake of our democracy and working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.

Wealth Tax as Transitional Measure

One of Vice President Kamala Harris’s policy proposals during her presidential campaign was a wealth tax—a 25-percent minimum tax on unrealized gains for taxpayers whose net wealth exceeds $100 million. This tax could bring in more than half a billion dollars of tax revenue over the next decade. 

While a wealth ceiling has its proponents, I propose a wealth tax at this point in time. This tax would establish a method for equalizing the tax burden in this country. A wealth tax would redistribute wealth from the top .1% to benefit the majority of citizens in this country.

 In his State of the Union address, President Biden proposed changes that would add revenue and improve tax fairness. The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax would phase in for those with wealth over $100 million, requiring that they pay at least a 20 percent tax rate on all income including unrealized capital gains. Currently, the morbidly wealthy can accumulate capital gains and pay no taxes if they don’t sell their assets. Correcting this could raise over $350 billion over a decade from only the extremely wealthy.

A wealth tax is one path toward reducing the federal deficit, which sits at an all-time high of more than $35 trillion. But it is not without its challenges.

1.      Wealth can be difficult to measure, as some of it exists in illiquid assets such as real estate and collectibles. 

2. To pay the taxes, taxpayers who are cash-poor yet asset-rich, may have to sell assets.
3. Taxpayers may leave the country to go where there is no wealth tax as happened when Norway instituted a wealth tax.

4.      The morbidly rich are able to evade taxes, so a wealth tax would be only another tax they are able to get out of paying.

Even with all these potential pitfalls, it is my contention that a 20-25% wealth tax is the optimal method to equalize the tax burden on US taxpayers. It would end the budget reconciliation passed by the House in which social programs like Medicaid and Snap food stamps would be cut $2 trillion through 2034. At stake is coverage for roughly 79 million people enrolled in Medicaid and its related Children's Health Insurance Program. So, too, at risk  is the financial health of thousands of hospitals and community health centers — and a huge revenue source to all states.

The resolution also authorizes the Ways and Means Committee to increase the deficit by $4.5 trillion over the same time period — this is the “instruction” that allows the committee to craft legislation to pave the way for the proposed tax cut for the wealthy of this same amount.

Medicaid covers Americans from the beginning of life to the end — paying for 4 in 10 births and care costs for more than 60% of nursing home residents. The program operates as a state-federal partnership, with the federal government paying most of the money and matching state funds regardless of how many people enroll.

What is Prout?

I call this wealth tax a transitional measure because the reality of the situation is that now, during tax season, 6000 IRS agents are slated to be fired by the Elon Musk DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), presumably so that they will not be there to collect taxes from the wealthy, who are most likely to be audited for tax evasion. However, focus needs to be set on rescinding these cuts.

What we really need is a society which is based on the social welfare of all citizens, not on the upper tenth of one percent billionaire class. Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory) is a socio-economic system created by Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar in 1959. Prout is about economic democracy as well as political democracy. It’s based on Neohumanist philosophy, which encourages respect and love for all beings and the environment. The decentralization of wealth is a key point in a Prout economy. It is achieved by supporting local cooperatives and industry to meet the needs of communities, making them self-sufficient. A democratically restructured Prout economy is based on cooperatives, private businesses, and government-run large-scale utilities.

In Prout, all minimum necessities of life; food, housing, health care, and medical care, is guaranteed to all people. A minimum and maximum wage is created, to ensure that the purchasing capacity of all people is constantly increasing with 100% employment of citizens. After meeting the basic needs of all individuals, the excess of capital would be given to individuals, depending upon their service to society. The economy would be focused more on the bottom up, rather than top down, with elected boards governing locally. A strong national government would administer programs that help make localities strong and prosperous.

It is time for a more drastic measure like a wealth tax. I realize that such a proposal in this country or anywhere else is not something that will be popular and easily adopted. However, it is the best course of action to create equality of wealth and opportunities for all to live the life we all want to see. Everyone wants to be  free of struggling to make ends meet, and to be able to have the opportunity for the ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ that the US Constitution sets out for all citizens.  We can achieve this wealth equality through the implementation of a wealth tax. Then we need to consider an alternative to capitalism. Prout is that viable alternative.

Notes:

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/wealth-tax-vital-to-reduce-extreme-inequality-and-tackle-climate-crisis/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/block-advisors/2025/01/22/do-you-know-the-right-structure-for-your-small-business/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-budget-resolution

https://prout.info/to-tax-the-rich-or-to-cap-wealth-that-is-the-question/

https://toolstochangetheworld.org/modules/level-1/3-the-wealth-cap/

https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-wealth-taxes/

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4782461-wealth-tax-supreme-court-decision/

https://proutglobe.org/2011/10/the-wealth-cap-and-other-practical-proposals-for-reducing-inequality/

https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/

https://ips-dc.org/report-billionaire-bonanza-2018/

https://itep.org/worried-about-the-debt-tax-the-rich/

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/20/nx-s1-5303475/republicans-medicaid-cuts-trump-hospitals/

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-republican-budget-takes-away-health-care-food-aid-to-pay-for-expanded-tax-cuts-for/

 

What Then Must We Do?

 

With all the recent barrage of sweeping shutdowns of long-standing programs like US AID, and Elon Musk’s  team’s takeover of the U. S. Treasury Department’s computer system, I, and many other citizens are outraged and dumbfounded.

What is really behind this coup to dismantle the government? This freezing of government funding, rash program shutterings and government employee firings are all set out in Project 2025, created by Russell Vought, recently confirmed to head the Office of Management and Budget. Project 2025 calls for outlawing medication abortion and putting abortion in the hands of the states. It wants to rollback protections for transgender people, cut diversity and equity offices, gut the immigration system, and start mass deportations, and strip funding from public assistance programs.

We now have an oligarchy by the rich replacing America’s representative democracy. Many people are suffering financially, having problems buying groceries, finding affordable housing and health care. The system is not perfect. We need a system that will take the money out of politics, not a dictatorship by the morbidly rich.

What can we do? Some people say they don’t know what to do. I can understand that response. I have some trouble with the response of other people I know, who tell me to just focus on myself, to be the best person I can be, not to let stress and worry overcome me, and everything will be all right. What about all those children who will starve if they don’t get AID food? What about the HIV sufferers who will not get essential medication? Are we to only think of ourselves? Other people say we should just wait until the government collapses, then those with a moral purpose and social consciousness can work together to put our society back together. Others keep telling me that all these shuttering of government agencies, firing of government workers, and freezing of government funding to programs is illegal, and won’t stand.

Wait! I have issues with all these stances. I think we have to do everything we can to help the most vulnerable—children, people of color, LGBTQIA folks, the poor, and the elderly, especially. Head Start’s funding, which was frozen on January 31^st, along with Medicaid’s, and other social service programs’ funding, is still partly frozen. Schools either cannot access federal funds, or are having great difficulty doing so. Some schools have closed. Despite the fact that a federal judge ordered a temporary restraining order to stop the funding freeze, funds remain frozen for some agencies, including US AID.

Today there are 580,000 homeless, a totally unacceptable number, especially as the US Census reports that there are 6 empty houses for each homeless man, woman, and child. This number can radically increase under the Trump/Musk rash slashing of programs that provide a social safety net for millions of citizens. Do we want large numbers of our population unable to provide food for their families? Do we want more people to die because they cannot afford proper health care? I say ‘no’ to all these scenarios.

 Many organizations are joining to challenge in the courts the legality of  the Trump/DOGE executive orders. Unfortunately, Vice President Vance said recently after a federal  judge put a restraining order on the continued pillage of our Treasury Department, “ If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”. In fact, they are. It is part of the checks and balances system, keeping one part of the government from wielding too much control.

Perhaps this country has strayed from being a democracy, with wealth concentrated in the top one per cent of the population. Yet if Project 2025 goes forward, millions of citizens will lose their social security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, SNAP food stamps, tax refunds, as well as experiencing the closing of dozens of other federal programs depended upon by millions of people.

We need to get money out of politics. We must organize in our local communities to ensure that people who may lose their social safety net, do not end up as part of the homeless population, which is increasing in this area, due to Helene, which displaced hundreds of North Carolinians, many of whom are still living in FEMA-supported hotels, waiting for federal funding to find permanent housing solutions. FEMA? Another agency Trump has cut off funds to.

We must work together to make our local communities self-sufficient and responsive to the needs of local citizens. Stopping the hijacking of the US government is a tall order, yet necessary to prevent needless suffering of our populace. We need to consider alternate systems to replace monopoly capitalism, which has run amuck, creating the disparity between the billionaire class and the rest of the population. We now have an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. 

Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory),  is economics as if all living beings mattered.  It provides a viable alternative to capitalism and communism. Prout works for the good of all, with emphasis on providing minimum necessities of life to all people, protecting the environment, and including all people in decision making, ensuring diversity, gender equity, and safeguarding LGBTQIA rights.

Prout will be addressed in my next blog.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-2-2025/

https://nwlc.org/russell-vought-the-project-2025-architect-and-omb-nominee-coming-for-our-democracy

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-rescinds-order-attempting-freeze-federal-aid-spen-rcna189852

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-head-start-health-centers-trump-funding-freeze/).

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx253xjnxrmo

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/jd-vance-judges-trump

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-extension-republican-salt-deduction-student-loans/

Tim Walz as VP Choice: Image vs. Policies

 

I have gotten some feedback in which arguments were made extolling Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’ VP choice. I have listened, and understand why, as a person and even as a politician, he is exemplary. However, I still am not convinced Walz was the best choice for a Vice President candidate.

 As much as I appreciate his background as a teacher, military officer, and governor, as well as his  social service bent, I think Harris would be better served with a younger, more articulate running mate, such as Pete Buttigieg. I realize that Buttigieg is not electable, as I have been reminded, due to his being gay, which is unfortunate. In the future, when younger Americans have a bit more presence in day-to-day politics, one’s sexual orientation will not be such a hindrance to being elected.

 In today’s fast-paced world of sound bites and personality politics, voters often take short cuts in voting. Some study a candidate’s policy proposals; however, most rely on other factors to make their voting choices. The reason I feel strongly that Tim Walz is not an ideal choice is that ever since the 1960 presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon, policies have given way to image as far as electability. The hierarchy of voting preference goes like this: Party, Person, Policy - in that order, because most people vote Party first because it represents their tribe, thinking that their tribe will best represent their interests (https://www.quora.com/Do-voters-care-much-more-about-the-personality-of-the-person-they-vote-for-or-about-the-policies-of-the-person-they-vote-for).

 A candidate’s personality comes second in voting preference, while their policies come in dead last.  Therefore, if Harris had chosen a younger, more photogenic running mate, regardless of her/his policies and background, she would have made a better choice, in my opinion. For example, in the famous Kennedy/Nixon debate (which I watched on TV as a child), Kennedy looked youthful, photogenic, and energetic, while Nixon looked pale and tired, with a five o’clock shadow beard. Nixon’s running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, watched the debate on TV, and lamented that Nixon had lost the election for the Republicans. Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s running mate, who heard the debate on the radio, thought Kennedy had lost the debate. Presidential debates became an election fixture in 1980, after the GOP challenger, Ronald Reagan, used a strong debate performance just a week before the election to win by a comfortable margin over Carter.  (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics).

 Image trumps the person and their policies. Donald Trump is a master at crafting an image, and in so doing has merged image and personality, the main focus of his campaign. Who knows what his policies really are?  If Harris and Walz rely on standard debate rhetoric, they may lose the debate, even if they would win the debate on the strength of content and arguments. I have no doubt that Harris will win the debate over Trump, though it could be close, due to Trump’s personality cult. I suggest that Walz dye his hair, get a face lift, and practice crafting his best television image. ( Not serious here. Just making a  point.) Of course, Walz is debating J. D. Vance, who may be younger with a more palatable TV image. No matter what Vance says, his image is more youthful and photogenic than Walz’s image. However, Vance’s personality may do him in. Personality and image seem inseparable on our current political horizon.

 

Where Have I Been?

 

It has been a year since I have written a blog post. Some may wonder what happened. Others may not have noticed the absence of my infrequent blogs. It is a bit difficult to explain. Let me just say that I was told I had to move from my home a year ago, and spent eight months looking for a new place. Asheville is a tough housing market. I have a place now, though it is far from what I want and need. Now I feel a little bit settled again, and am setting out once again to blog.

Today since the election is drawing near, I want to  say that I am happy that Kamala Harris is now the Democratic candidate for president. A woman president is long overdue in this country. I am a little shaky, though, on fully endorsing Tim Walz for VP, although he seems like a wholesome pick--a National Guard reservist, former schoolteacher, and all-around good guy. I am unsure if the younger demographic will warm up to him, though. I would have much preferred to see my fellow Hoosier, Pete Buttigieg, as VP. He is young, brilliant, moral to a fault, former Naval officer, and also an all-around good guy. Perhaps his being gay may have hurt his chances with mainstream Americans, yet I think the younger generation may not have viewed that unfavorably. Let’s face it. Youth will make or break this election as they did with Barak Obama’s election.

There is always the unpleasant reality that Republicans will continue gerrymandering, and purging poor folks from the voting rolls, and  interfering with balloting at the polls, as they have done in the past. That could swing the election toward Trump, unfortunately.

At this point, who knows what will happen. And since big money is the underlying controlling force in politics, whichever candidate kowtows to big donors, will have the advantage in the race. The media has gotten increasingly conservative, even reactionary in certain cases. Everyday Americans are extremely influenced by media, especially Fox News with its reactionary agenda and support of Trump. Even major news media like The Washington Post that we could always count on to give accurate, fair reporting, has taken a Trump-ward bent, probably due to its new owner, Jeff Bezos. Not to mention that the Wall Street Journal and New York Post are both owned by Australian billionaire Rupert Murdock, who is also behind the Fox News Network. Whoever controls the media, controls public opinion.

This presidential race will be interesting to watch. While I support the Democratic ticket, I am more in favor of overhauling partisan politics in general, especially getting big money out of it entirely and out of our hair.

British Mysteries are for Me

 

I have to admit that I am hooked on British mysteries. Most anything the BBC cooks up is perfect for me! Believe me, I have tried to find mysteries to watch on Hulu. What is advertised as a light mystery often turns into dreadful, bloody, haunting fare, sometimes with zombies, to boot! I have about given up on the US studios and streaming studios with their over-the-top mystery fare.

Give me  good old Agatha Christie’s “Poirot” or her “Miss Marple” any day over most US mystery shows. The BBC has produced dozens of intelligent, interesting mysteries. Besides the renowned Agatha Christie and "Sherlock Holmes" films are: “Father Brown”, “Midsomer Murders”, “Vera”, "Death in Paradise", “Pie in the Sky” and many other quality shows. You can even see women, and not always Hollywood Barbie types in the lead detective roles, like with “Vera”. How refreshing!

As summer progresses, I will probably watch more British mysteries in the evenings when I am winding down before going to bed. I hope I don’t run out of these engaging series. I would not be happy to have to resort to American mysteries. It seems every time I think I have landed on a decent show, all of a sudden it degrades into a horror film with images of brutal, graphic murders or zombies stalking a city. Yuck!

It would be instructive to find out why American cinema has so degenerated. One thinks it is to keep viewers engaged and scintillated as they are dragged into sheer terror on screen. Why does the American viewing public seem to require blood and gore in order to be entertained these days? Perhaps there is a connection with the ever-increasing rate of brutal and bloody mass murders happening in this country. In Great Britain the police don’t even carry guns, and mass murders are so rare that it is hard to find an example in that country. What have we come to in the United Stares? Why are many so bloodthirsty and depraved in their viewing habits?

I am pondering this question as I turn on BritBox to watch another installment of “Pie in the Sky”.

 

 

Women We Are

 

In honor of Women's History Month, I would like to refer to a movie I saw yesterday on Hulu, "The Wife ". Glen Close was riveting as Joan, the author, Joseph Castleman's wife. He has just gotten the news that he has received the Nobel Prize in Literature. When an aggressive biographer accuses Joan of ghostwriting her husband's books, she denies it, yet she begins to fume within, until in one of the final scenes, after hearing Joseph tell fellow Nobel laureates that his wife didn't write, she blows up, and asks him for a divorce.

 It seems that the irritating biographer, though unpleasant, had hit the nail on the head. Joan had been warned that women could not succeed in publishing, so she instead wrote her husband's books, since his writing was much inferior to hers. She took no credit. That Nobel prize was rightfully hers, as Joseph realized when he threw it at her on the way back from the Nobel Ceremony.

 I see this show as a metaphor for the roles women have been expected to play to support men as wife, mother, housekeeper, child care director, nurse, etc. Since the 1960s Sexual Revolution, a few more active, vital roles have opened up for women. Still even the eminent J. K. Rowling felt she had to use her initials rather than her name on the Harry Potter  books, to disguise  her gender.

 Will there ever be a woman President of the United States? There have been women presidents of a few other countries--New Zealand, Germany, Iceland, Ceylon, Argentina, Namibia, Bangladesh, India, the United Kingdom, and others. Surely, the United States is progressive enough to elect a woman as president. Yet Hilary Clinton couldn't pull it off. Could any woman? In this country? I think we are so enmeshed in gender role expectations that it will take a major shift in cultural mores before women can attain such an exalted status as president of the United States. And with the ultraconservative backlash now wherein Roe v. Wade has been dismantled, and the right to abortion and other women's health care has been taken away, the hope of a woman president is sadly fading.

 I urge women to stand up and oppose these new draconian laws, and to assert our rights from the top of the mountains. It will take a lot to move this country forward, out of the pit it has fallen into. We can do it. It will take everyone of us, though. Every single one of us, sisters and supportive brothers. Let's do it.

Civil War North Carolina and Today's Unrest

 

Lately I’ve been reading The French Broad by Wilma Dykeman. Being a fairly new North Carolina transplantee, I am slowly acquainting myself with state history. Given that North Carolina was a Confederate state, the implications of that I have been unaware of until picking up this book.

There were separate pockets of Confederate and Union sympathizers, often within the same community and neighborhood. In general, most of the Union sympathizers were in the cities and the Confederates were in more rural areas. However, often even families had divided sympathies, which led to the assertion that the Civil War was “brother vs. brother”.

As the Union Army won more of the battles, Union sympathizers migrated north to cities like Knoxville, Tennessee, the Union Army Headquarters. Some family members urged their family members who were Confederate soldiers, to desert. Even though Confederate Army deserters were often shot or hanged, as time went on, they often eluded capture as the Confederate Army was unable to apprehend the masses of deserters lining the roads.

The brutality shown deserters, enemy soldiers, and even non-military residents, was shocking. In January 1863, a group of about 50 local men raided storehouses in Marshall in Madison County. Since the Confederate Army had demanded most of the farmers’ crops and livestock for army use, local residents were too often starving, so it is easy to understand why the food was stolen. Colonel Garrett was ordered to arrest the men and prepare them for trial; however, a Lieutenant Colonel had 19 of them shot, and even tortured some of their wives, as well.

The key issue being fought for, slavery, was not generally forefront in this struggle, according to Dykeman and several other sources, at least to the North Carolinians whose lives were being disrupted, their farms raided and destroyed by occupying armies, and their family members killed and wounded in a war they didn’t fully comprehend. As the war progressed, many of the mountain men who, early on, had joined up with the Confederate Army, went over to the Union side. It could not have been easy to accept that wealthy landowners who owned at least 20 slaves, could get out of serving in the Confederate Army.

I see a parallel with the current political situation we see today, and, for example, the angry mob incited by Trump to storm the Capitol on January 6th. The dissatisfaction felt by Civil War Era North Carolinians whose livelihoods were destroyed by the occupation army can be likened to the masses of folks in this country now who are struggling to survive. Most people are experiencing some measure of financial insecurity with the high rate of homelessness, exorbitant price of prescription drugs, insurance company fraud, high rents and real estate costs, lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable childcare, and the list goes on…

One per cent of the population controls 80 percent of the wealth in this country. While I don’t condone the tactics used by Trump’s rioters, I do feel that there is a wave rising up within the population that enough is enough. Given that the United States has never been a true democracy, at least we have had more prosperous times, and conditions in which citizens could demonstrate in the streets against injustice much more freely. The number of mass shootings and violence against people of color is escalating. My question is: What are we going to do about it?