Nice lecture if I were a college freshman. I would almost believe it. But as a cynical retired person, I did not enjoy it. Tax laws are written to favor the wealthy by a huge amount over WE THE PEOPLE. Why? Well, WE THE PEOPLE don't own any Senators or Congress Critters. These latter two collections write the tax laws, and they need money to fund their campaigns. WE THE PEOPLE don't have the assets needed to own a Senator or two. So it's pretty simple. The fix is to re-do the entire tax code of the United States concurrent with figuring how much of any individual Senator or Congress Critter can big owned by "Big Money." While we are at it, we need to add to the Supreme Court to dilute the evil effects of the six fascists in black robes. That's just for starters. These need to happen more or less simultaneously because anything else is tantamount to pissing into the wind.
Fair point, Leslie. But not sure we could do that without overwhelming control of both houses of Congress. Not sure we will be there after November, but I would love to be able to tell you then that I was wrong ;-)
The "democratic information equation"? Keep it simple, remove the PACs, SuperPACs, dark money and corporate bribes from politics. Some states are implementing action themselves to stop big money from influencing politics and elections. Then we can work on implementing Wealth Inequality taxes and closing loopholes without "paid for" representatives working against us.
As things stand today, that would require a Supreme Court decision not only overturning Citizens United but the decision on which it, and numerous other decisions regarding campaign finance, are based, the landmark Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that largely overturned the Campaign Finance Act of 1974 and defined campaign contributions as free speech under protection of the first amendment. Obviously, this Supreme Kangaroo Court would do no such thing, and the way things are done currently it could be a generation or more -- at best -- before it is brought into ideological balance, and that's being optimistic.
So, our alternatives would be either to amend the constitution, an arduous procedure that would be nearly impossible to achieve, or to reconfigure our Federal courts, which is a power granted exclusively to Congress under Article 1. The obvious solution would be to add perhaps four additional Supreme Court Justices that would bring the number up to a reasonable 15, while Democrats are in control of the Senate and the White House.
I would advocate a more extensive reconfiguration of our Federal court system, but that's a discussion for another time. But I am quite certain that none of our Founders would favor the plutocratic oligarchy that we are being subjected to today.
Well, we could pass a law that says Congress Critters and Senators must dress like NASCAR drivers, with the size of the patch on their jacket indicates the percentage ownership by that particular sponsor!
But that may result in commercial sponsors ONLY offering huge sums, so their "ad" can be seen in proper size.
But, that also might limit each critter's accepted donations to only what fits. Too many sponsor dollars and we'd be judging our politicians on such things as capes and l-o-n-g tails on tuxes...possibly blocks long.
I'm really not sure why the success (or lack thereof) of my vote would have very much influence on my lobbyists (or lack thereof.)
Besides, while rich people may hire MORE lobbyists if their lobbying efforts fail....
Logic says that poor Americans will only be likely to hire lobbyists when their candidates SUCCEED in helping the poor financially, in which case the poor no longer have the same need to invest in lobbyists.
I hope this has helped to answer your question.
Besides, PACs generally make those decisions, not individual donors.
All good points Jeff. Still, what Robert Reich is doing is opening the eyes of those of us who are poor working stiffs that barely have enough to keep body and soul together. The only thing WE have going for us is that WE our the majority of people in this country and WE are starting to catch on to all that is going on. It is the one thing that WE can thank DJT and those super-wealthy fat cats for. WE actually can vote people into office that can tax the wealthy, to at least stop living in day-to-day fear of them and what they might do next to make our lives harder. BTW - I still have my Elizabeth Warren '2 cents' pin! :-) In my opinion, the woman is not blind to what you and Robert are talking about, and how to get beyond it.
I think it would be more helpful, in the long term, to make Congressional terms 3 years, instead of 2 years. Also, put more regulations on "redistricting"; I feel there should be more competitive districts, that don't attract extremists.
When the cold war ended, the oligarchs didn't need cannon fodder anymore, and dropped all the "we're all in this together" pretenses. Now it's all right out in the open: "I got mine, and I'll soon have yours."
Toward the end of World War II, America’s richest citizens were paying a tax rate of up to 94% with historically little pushback or complaint, because that’s what America required to defeat fascism and maintain Democracy.
During the start of a new century under President “W”, people paying even as little as 1/4th of that WWII tax rate demanded even lower tax rates…twice. During wartime.
60 years…..
From the end of America’s Civil War, and for the next 100 years, there were essentially ONLY Democrats in elected federal offices from the south due to southern hate for Republican President Lincoln.
Beginning around 1960, the GOP began to implement their Southern Strategy of racist hate in white southern churches. Following that period, in 2025 (white) American “Christians” overwhelmingly voted to replace their worship of Jesus with their worship of a man who wasn’t even able to name the Golden Rule: Donald Trump.
The new MAGA savior told them he could save their souls by altering the past, if they would be willing to abandon all sense of personal responsibility. And abandon Jesus, of course. And the 100% Democratic south became overwhelmingly GOP, as it remains.
60 years…..
In the early 1960s Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. became one of the most effective and respected freedom fighters on Earth.
In 2025, virtually everything Dr. King accomplished was either driven from the American memory or weaponized in an attempt to prevent anything like Dr. King’s legacy from EVER being influential in America again.
The GOP eliminated patriotism as a positive American trait and replaced it with GREED….
The GOP removed the loving words of Jesus from the hearts of white Americans, and replaced them with HATE…
The GOP eliminated Dr. King’s legacy as they removed his principles of brotherhood and personal sacrifice from the American psyche, and replaced them with FEAR…
Seemingly, this “Trifecta of mind control: greed, hate and fear” is an indication that the GOP can accomplish anything they want towards gaining control, and the DNC won’t even know until it’s just too late.
They just need to patiently wait for about 60 years….
New Jersey’s approximately $300,000 racial wealth gap between Black/Latina and white families has doubled to approximately $640,000. New Jersey remains one of the wealthiest states in the nation, but that wealth is shared unequally.
The median household wealth of white families in New Jersey is $662,500, compared to less than $20,000 for Black and Latina/o families. For individuals, the median net worth of white individuals is $192,700, compared with just $14,000 and $5,000 for Black and Latina/o individuals.
The report also addresses other financial disparities in New Jersey, including home ownership and income. While more than three quarters (76.6%) of white families own their home, only 41.3% Black families and 40.4% Latina/o families do. The median household income for white families is $110,100, compared to $68,000 for Black families and $76,100 for Latina/o families.
That's the all too-often troupe repeated ad-infinitum but only true if $1= 1 vote has a higher weight than 1 person = 1 vote.
More seriously, why are you paying more than lip-service to that anti-democratic position as if we can not get out of the cage the few have ensnared us with, not by chains but thoughts we carry as if true?
Just looking at it realistically, Eduard. How are the wealthy going to be taxed unless you can get money out of politics? Getting money out of politics is the answer, and it would be difficult, but it could be done if we get Republicans out of control and people in control that agree with the premise. Possible, but it wonʻt be easy, either
Why are you attacking me the person while being logically short on addressing the argument before you?
Like did you not notice after your opening misdirection you changed your tune from something that can't be changed to now if the so-called Dems are elected change may be possible? But then why the further qualifier that even with a Dem win still a very huge uphill climb?
I like many of your comments but here look forward to a factual reasoned reply and removing your opening slag would be welcomed.
To the contrary, I asked an obvious question about the current situation. Then I simply inferred that the wealthy have the money and influence with the Republican Party, which is factual.
I did not attack you in any regard. Actually, you accused me of "giving more than lip service to (an) anti-democratic position." Which I did not ...
You know what, Revolution seems so much faster and efficient given all the barriers to fairness and equality that stand in the way of achieving the More Perfect Union we should ALL be striving for.
So many folks here have been so brainwashed over the decades that they don’t think our government should be serving US—ALL of us. Western Europe and Canada after WWII have done a far better job of providing what ordinary citizens need, even if some things (e. g. housing) is expensive. They have provided universal healthcare, childcare, education through college, good work benefits ( including more vacation time), and retirement. Of course citizens there complain until they see what’s going on in the US.
Now it’s a bit of a mess everywhere, largely due to Rump’s worldwide meddling, but he’s just as mortal as the rest of us.
Revolution is fast and efficient when it's about getting rid of a government. But revolution is also unreliable and tends to morph into a civil war. It's powered by rage, hunger and aggression on one side, and hope, courage and enthusiasm on the other. That's an explosive mix, and there's no guarantee that it will realise people's dreams. On the contrary, more often revolution devours its children and leads to a worse situation than before.
I'm sold on replacing the economic doctrine we've been slipping downward with since it's full introduction during Reagan's administrations in the 80's. Because it follows precisely with the rise of wealths unearned income to where it stands today. And neither political party has balked at following it's tenants. Small government that stays out of planning the market. Deregulation, (banking & Wall St.). Allowing for consolidation of the market, (monopolies). Privatization of nearly every former socialized incentive for the public.
With all this transformation from Keynesian to Neoliberal economics came the wealthy influence more and more of our government. So, sure taxation reform is necessary, but the bigger picture is that our entire economic philosophy is tailored towards benefitting the obvious benefactors of Neoliberalism. A comprehensive restructuring is needed to really transform this wealth building doctrine to an economy that makes sustainability the core priority over speculation boom & bust capitalism. Meaning a strong government that calls the shots over a fickle market unprincipled with peoples welfare.
Secondly close as many tax loopholes as possible. Increase the wealth tax to at least 4% that amount would be no hardship fo billionaires and multy millionaires This might be worth thinking about to have an inheiritance tax for over a specified amount of money. Also what is needed is an increase of minium wages to a decent living standard.
The legislatures of Hawaii and Montana are proposing laws that don't define corporations as 'people' capable of flooding the political system with donations that advance their economic interests at the expense of common taxpayers. It remains to be seen if the SCOTUS, which defined corporations as people in the 2011 Citizens United case, will allow these state laws to stand.
Would it not be even more helpful if the professor actually engaged on these forums in order to draw out more nuanced productive collaborative thought other than these highly selective at times rather arbitrary top-down missives?
He says he learned a lot from his students within that highly interactive format, so why not here? Like I've tried to engage him a long time now already even honoured his request saying more can be done via his pay to play forum, but so far nada.
Is someone sniffing something that I'm missing? Barry I ask this more generally than of you as IMO&O this is our first interaction and would be unfair if seen as a direct question only of you.
I think if we get a new Congress, a Congress thatnwill actually do their job, their first order of business is to stop all the big money in politics. Our so called government ceases to be "of the people, by the people, for the people" when these wealthy SOB's are buying the government to serve them and cheat us. You watch what a turn around there would be when Elon Musk isn't buying the elections for Republicans because they can't win anymore without cheating.
The video referenced in this piece is over four years old. Things have gotten MUCH worse since then, and the wealth gap is widening at an exponential pace.
The video speaks of Elon Musk's wealth as having "surpassed $250 billion." How quaint!
Elon Musk has since been awarded, by the corporate board he personally appointed to do his bidding, a compensation package that, although it contained a lot of incentives that are unlikely to be met, potentially totaled $1 Trillion (note: This has nothing to do with his wealth from the SpaceX IPO, a wholly separate and additional deal).
To put this in perspective, it is an amount significantly greater than the total full retail price of every Tesla automobile ever sold from the first Lotus-based roadster to the present.
The robber barons have methods of obtaining wealth that are not available to regular schmoes like you and me, and in unimaginable quantities.
Robert's ideas are excellent, as always. It probably goes without saying that the idea of worth, in the financial sense, has for too long been confused with the idea of moral worthiness. If I believe that my wealth makes me morally superior to people with only a small fraction of mine, I could be caught saying that "they" (not "we") are "feeding at the public trough" (like pigs) if they need public assistance because they don't earn enough from jobs with low wages. Minimum wages are terrible ideas to people who imagine themselves superior because they own or control a business. A recognition of each person's dignity as a human and a citizen's equality under law should bring a greater impulse to pay "living" or "decent" wages to those who have inherent rights to life in a broad sense, not simply animal existence. A "commonwealth" can mean the right to live in a land of abundance for all, not simply plutocrats at the top and serfs far below them.
Only when the rich and powerful are no longer powerful in our government will we be able to pass laws that make the rich pay their fair share in taxes.
We need a sweeping overhaul in our election campaigns, one in which Big Money plays no part. We need an election system run by our government, a system designed by wise and fair minded legislators. This is not a new idea.
Once this is accomplished, it will be possible to make the rich and currently powerful pay their fair share in taxes.
Nice lecture if I were a college freshman. I would almost believe it. But as a cynical retired person, I did not enjoy it. Tax laws are written to favor the wealthy by a huge amount over WE THE PEOPLE. Why? Well, WE THE PEOPLE don't own any Senators or Congress Critters. These latter two collections write the tax laws, and they need money to fund their campaigns. WE THE PEOPLE don't have the assets needed to own a Senator or two. So it's pretty simple. The fix is to re-do the entire tax code of the United States concurrent with figuring how much of any individual Senator or Congress Critter can big owned by "Big Money." While we are at it, we need to add to the Supreme Court to dilute the evil effects of the six fascists in black robes. That's just for starters. These need to happen more or less simultaneously because anything else is tantamount to pissing into the wind.
Very first action should be to End Citizen's United!
Fair point, Leslie. But not sure we could do that without overwhelming control of both houses of Congress. Not sure we will be there after November, but I would love to be able to tell you then that I was wrong ;-)
Fair point agreed but on the bigger picture your interlocutor is providing more diversion than truly adding to the democratic information equation.
The "democratic information equation"? Keep it simple, remove the PACs, SuperPACs, dark money and corporate bribes from politics. Some states are implementing action themselves to stop big money from influencing politics and elections. Then we can work on implementing Wealth Inequality taxes and closing loopholes without "paid for" representatives working against us.
Unless I have yours wrong why are you adding to the binary either/or instead of really adding to this discussion via both/and perspectives?
As things stand today, that would require a Supreme Court decision not only overturning Citizens United but the decision on which it, and numerous other decisions regarding campaign finance, are based, the landmark Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that largely overturned the Campaign Finance Act of 1974 and defined campaign contributions as free speech under protection of the first amendment. Obviously, this Supreme Kangaroo Court would do no such thing, and the way things are done currently it could be a generation or more -- at best -- before it is brought into ideological balance, and that's being optimistic.
So, our alternatives would be either to amend the constitution, an arduous procedure that would be nearly impossible to achieve, or to reconfigure our Federal courts, which is a power granted exclusively to Congress under Article 1. The obvious solution would be to add perhaps four additional Supreme Court Justices that would bring the number up to a reasonable 15, while Democrats are in control of the Senate and the White House.
I would advocate a more extensive reconfiguration of our Federal court system, but that's a discussion for another time. But I am quite certain that none of our Founders would favor the plutocratic oligarchy that we are being subjected to today.
We poor have lousy lobbyists....
Well, we could pass a law that says Congress Critters and Senators must dress like NASCAR drivers, with the size of the patch on their jacket indicates the percentage ownership by that particular sponsor!
Interesting...
But that may result in commercial sponsors ONLY offering huge sums, so their "ad" can be seen in proper size.
But, that also might limit each critter's accepted donations to only what fits. Too many sponsor dollars and we'd be judging our politicians on such things as capes and l-o-n-g tails on tuxes...possibly blocks long.
When having fun, pray tell how could you miss an obvious one? Have you not noticed the size and length of the phallic symbol he always has on display?
Btw, any guess why this forum unlike most others of RR's has so few participants? Your insight would be more than appreciated!
Why is that when you have a direct vote in who will represent your interests?
I'm really not sure why the success (or lack thereof) of my vote would have very much influence on my lobbyists (or lack thereof.)
Besides, while rich people may hire MORE lobbyists if their lobbying efforts fail....
Logic says that poor Americans will only be likely to hire lobbyists when their candidates SUCCEED in helping the poor financially, in which case the poor no longer have the same need to invest in lobbyists.
I hope this has helped to answer your question.
Besides, PACs generally make those decisions, not individual donors.
He did call this video a primer, Jeff.
A well deserved corrective critique. Bravo!
Merci!
Through serendipity I came across this board not long after it was begun, but you were there already, but much further below.
So glad people came to see that then #1 was really never #1. Since then now see your is #1. Congrats and further icing on the cake to come?
All good points Jeff. Still, what Robert Reich is doing is opening the eyes of those of us who are poor working stiffs that barely have enough to keep body and soul together. The only thing WE have going for us is that WE our the majority of people in this country and WE are starting to catch on to all that is going on. It is the one thing that WE can thank DJT and those super-wealthy fat cats for. WE actually can vote people into office that can tax the wealthy, to at least stop living in day-to-day fear of them and what they might do next to make our lives harder. BTW - I still have my Elizabeth Warren '2 cents' pin! :-) In my opinion, the woman is not blind to what you and Robert are talking about, and how to get beyond it.
I think it would be more helpful, in the long term, to make Congressional terms 3 years, instead of 2 years. Also, put more regulations on "redistricting"; I feel there should be more competitive districts, that don't attract extremists.
Could wealth inequality be the result of those who benefit most being those who write/sponsor such inequitable tax laws?
Nah....
When the cold war ended, the oligarchs didn't need cannon fodder anymore, and dropped all the "we're all in this together" pretenses. Now it's all right out in the open: "I got mine, and I'll soon have yours."
60 years….
Toward the end of World War II, America’s richest citizens were paying a tax rate of up to 94% with historically little pushback or complaint, because that’s what America required to defeat fascism and maintain Democracy.
During the start of a new century under President “W”, people paying even as little as 1/4th of that WWII tax rate demanded even lower tax rates…twice. During wartime.
60 years…..
From the end of America’s Civil War, and for the next 100 years, there were essentially ONLY Democrats in elected federal offices from the south due to southern hate for Republican President Lincoln.
Beginning around 1960, the GOP began to implement their Southern Strategy of racist hate in white southern churches. Following that period, in 2025 (white) American “Christians” overwhelmingly voted to replace their worship of Jesus with their worship of a man who wasn’t even able to name the Golden Rule: Donald Trump.
The new MAGA savior told them he could save their souls by altering the past, if they would be willing to abandon all sense of personal responsibility. And abandon Jesus, of course. And the 100% Democratic south became overwhelmingly GOP, as it remains.
60 years…..
In the early 1960s Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. became one of the most effective and respected freedom fighters on Earth.
In 2025, virtually everything Dr. King accomplished was either driven from the American memory or weaponized in an attempt to prevent anything like Dr. King’s legacy from EVER being influential in America again.
The GOP eliminated patriotism as a positive American trait and replaced it with GREED….
The GOP removed the loving words of Jesus from the hearts of white Americans, and replaced them with HATE…
The GOP eliminated Dr. King’s legacy as they removed his principles of brotherhood and personal sacrifice from the American psyche, and replaced them with FEAR…
Seemingly, this “Trifecta of mind control: greed, hate and fear” is an indication that the GOP can accomplish anything they want towards gaining control, and the DNC won’t even know until it’s just too late.
They just need to patiently wait for about 60 years….
You may be first but hardly worthy of best IMO&O having read them all at the time of posting this comment
Speaking of wealth inequality:
I read (today) that Our President was telling people in Michigan: "I've done more for you than your parents!"
Well, I say, tell him how you feel, in November"s election, about higher store prices and gas prices!
New Jersey’s approximately $300,000 racial wealth gap between Black/Latina and white families has doubled to approximately $640,000. New Jersey remains one of the wealthiest states in the nation, but that wealth is shared unequally.
The median household wealth of white families in New Jersey is $662,500, compared to less than $20,000 for Black and Latina/o families. For individuals, the median net worth of white individuals is $192,700, compared with just $14,000 and $5,000 for Black and Latina/o individuals.
The report also addresses other financial disparities in New Jersey, including home ownership and income. While more than three quarters (76.6%) of white families own their home, only 41.3% Black families and 40.4% Latina/o families do. The median household income for white families is $110,100, compared to $68,000 for Black families and $76,100 for Latina/o families.
https://njisj.org/press_releases/new-jersey-racial-wealth-gap-over-600000-says-new-institute-report/
But will the wealthy let anything happen to change the inequality? Theyʻve got the power ..
- Karen Cooper
That's the all too-often troupe repeated ad-infinitum but only true if $1= 1 vote has a higher weight than 1 person = 1 vote.
More seriously, why are you paying more than lip-service to that anti-democratic position as if we can not get out of the cage the few have ensnared us with, not by chains but thoughts we carry as if true?
Just looking at it realistically, Eduard. How are the wealthy going to be taxed unless you can get money out of politics? Getting money out of politics is the answer, and it would be difficult, but it could be done if we get Republicans out of control and people in control that agree with the premise. Possible, but it wonʻt be easy, either
Incidentally, I am a long-standing Democrat
- Karen
Why are you attacking me the person while being logically short on addressing the argument before you?
Like did you not notice after your opening misdirection you changed your tune from something that can't be changed to now if the so-called Dems are elected change may be possible? But then why the further qualifier that even with a Dem win still a very huge uphill climb?
I like many of your comments but here look forward to a factual reasoned reply and removing your opening slag would be welcomed.
To the contrary, I asked an obvious question about the current situation. Then I simply inferred that the wealthy have the money and influence with the Republican Party, which is factual.
I did not attack you in any regard. Actually, you accused me of "giving more than lip service to (an) anti-democratic position." Which I did not ...
- Karen
You know what, Revolution seems so much faster and efficient given all the barriers to fairness and equality that stand in the way of achieving the More Perfect Union we should ALL be striving for.
So many folks here have been so brainwashed over the decades that they don’t think our government should be serving US—ALL of us. Western Europe and Canada after WWII have done a far better job of providing what ordinary citizens need, even if some things (e. g. housing) is expensive. They have provided universal healthcare, childcare, education through college, good work benefits ( including more vacation time), and retirement. Of course citizens there complain until they see what’s going on in the US.
Now it’s a bit of a mess everywhere, largely due to Rump’s worldwide meddling, but he’s just as mortal as the rest of us.
Revolution is fast and efficient when it's about getting rid of a government. But revolution is also unreliable and tends to morph into a civil war. It's powered by rage, hunger and aggression on one side, and hope, courage and enthusiasm on the other. That's an explosive mix, and there's no guarantee that it will realise people's dreams. On the contrary, more often revolution devours its children and leads to a worse situation than before.
.
I'm sold on replacing the economic doctrine we've been slipping downward with since it's full introduction during Reagan's administrations in the 80's. Because it follows precisely with the rise of wealths unearned income to where it stands today. And neither political party has balked at following it's tenants. Small government that stays out of planning the market. Deregulation, (banking & Wall St.). Allowing for consolidation of the market, (monopolies). Privatization of nearly every former socialized incentive for the public.
With all this transformation from Keynesian to Neoliberal economics came the wealthy influence more and more of our government. So, sure taxation reform is necessary, but the bigger picture is that our entire economic philosophy is tailored towards benefitting the obvious benefactors of Neoliberalism. A comprehensive restructuring is needed to really transform this wealth building doctrine to an economy that makes sustainability the core priority over speculation boom & bust capitalism. Meaning a strong government that calls the shots over a fickle market unprincipled with peoples welfare.
Secondly close as many tax loopholes as possible. Increase the wealth tax to at least 4% that amount would be no hardship fo billionaires and multy millionaires This might be worth thinking about to have an inheiritance tax for over a specified amount of money. Also what is needed is an increase of minium wages to a decent living standard.
The legislatures of Hawaii and Montana are proposing laws that don't define corporations as 'people' capable of flooding the political system with donations that advance their economic interests at the expense of common taxpayers. It remains to be seen if the SCOTUS, which defined corporations as people in the 2011 Citizens United case, will allow these state laws to stand.
I don’t recall you talking about this, RobertReich: What is the impact of the U.S. economy on deportation of immigrants during Trump’s 2nd term?
Good call!
And the list is a lot longer too!
Would it not be even more helpful if the professor actually engaged on these forums in order to draw out more nuanced productive collaborative thought other than these highly selective at times rather arbitrary top-down missives?
He says he learned a lot from his students within that highly interactive format, so why not here? Like I've tried to engage him a long time now already even honoured his request saying more can be done via his pay to play forum, but so far nada.
Is someone sniffing something that I'm missing? Barry I ask this more generally than of you as IMO&O this is our first interaction and would be unfair if seen as a direct question only of you.
I think if we get a new Congress, a Congress thatnwill actually do their job, their first order of business is to stop all the big money in politics. Our so called government ceases to be "of the people, by the people, for the people" when these wealthy SOB's are buying the government to serve them and cheat us. You watch what a turn around there would be when Elon Musk isn't buying the elections for Republicans because they can't win anymore without cheating.
The video referenced in this piece is over four years old. Things have gotten MUCH worse since then, and the wealth gap is widening at an exponential pace.
The video speaks of Elon Musk's wealth as having "surpassed $250 billion." How quaint!
Elon Musk has since been awarded, by the corporate board he personally appointed to do his bidding, a compensation package that, although it contained a lot of incentives that are unlikely to be met, potentially totaled $1 Trillion (note: This has nothing to do with his wealth from the SpaceX IPO, a wholly separate and additional deal).
To put this in perspective, it is an amount significantly greater than the total full retail price of every Tesla automobile ever sold from the first Lotus-based roadster to the present.
The robber barons have methods of obtaining wealth that are not available to regular schmoes like you and me, and in unimaginable quantities.
It's time to abolish Citizens United and add wealth tax.
Robert's ideas are excellent, as always. It probably goes without saying that the idea of worth, in the financial sense, has for too long been confused with the idea of moral worthiness. If I believe that my wealth makes me morally superior to people with only a small fraction of mine, I could be caught saying that "they" (not "we") are "feeding at the public trough" (like pigs) if they need public assistance because they don't earn enough from jobs with low wages. Minimum wages are terrible ideas to people who imagine themselves superior because they own or control a business. A recognition of each person's dignity as a human and a citizen's equality under law should bring a greater impulse to pay "living" or "decent" wages to those who have inherent rights to life in a broad sense, not simply animal existence. A "commonwealth" can mean the right to live in a land of abundance for all, not simply plutocrats at the top and serfs far below them.
Only when the rich and powerful are no longer powerful in our government will we be able to pass laws that make the rich pay their fair share in taxes.
We need a sweeping overhaul in our election campaigns, one in which Big Money plays no part. We need an election system run by our government, a system designed by wise and fair minded legislators. This is not a new idea.
Once this is accomplished, it will be possible to make the rich and currently powerful pay their fair share in taxes.
Robert,
Can you comment on this paper - which seems to contradict what you said in your video? It's not that I disbelieve what you stated. I'm sure you're 100% spot on. It's simply that I can't interpret its findings and why it contradicts what you believe. Thanks in advance. Mike Grill at mtgrill@mindspring.com https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/who-pays-federal-income-taxes-tax-year-2023/?fbclid=IwY2xjawTWCrZwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMWtEeFM0ZzdBMHF4V3Q3OVBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeenpouKfFqvMx13n21DWnwQ6bHY34LIjYIdBEJzQLEVvYy2yvX24O9xhHeKo_aem_1dY2lq-YNXch_SBQVNKifw