the DON JONES INDEX…
	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 4/17/76… 15,583.63 4/10/26… 15,638.08 6/27/13... 15,000.00
(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 4/17/26... 48,578.92; 4/10/26... 48,185.80; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)

LESSON for FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2026 – “ONE for YOU, NINETEEN for ME!”

Wednesday, was Tax Day (2026).

Back in 2025, our explication of the history of taxation in the Index of a year ago (which we fully reproduce as ATTACHMENT “A” – albeit with its attachments still up in the cloud, see URL above, to be visited or not, as choice dictates) ranged from ancient Egypt through Rome, the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 and the World Wars to the Venezuelan War (Iran still over the horizon); covering income, consumption, property, estate, petroleum, food and corporate levies.

Tariffs, leaping into the forefront at the Hand of Donald, were “the original pipeline of tax revenue for the U.S. government,” including the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, which increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War, after which industrialization enabled the nativist dream of exports becoming more common than imports.

Foreigners, predicably proposed... and have since exacted... retaliation. Over the course of the year, tariffs have become more volatile and more politicized as... until the demands of the Iranian War cut down on the tariffing gameplaying... tariff policy tended to reflect the President’s likes and dislikes across the globe.

And even tho’ tariff policies are supposed to be approved by Congress, they remain under the sole authority (and whims) of Donald Trump (howsoever influenced by market movements of the moment).

At least a few of the 2065’s losers have recouped their plunder this year... Musk’s worth dropped by $130B to $302B a year ago, Bezos was then worth $193B and the Zuck $179B... still more than enough to afford a Saturday night splurge at the Olive Garden.

Stumbling further back into the past to the first year of Goneaway Ol’ Joe’s first and only term, Biden gave a Rose (not Olive) Garden speech outlining his infrastructure dreams – already compromised, however, to the extent that the liberal Slate (April 8, 2021, ATTACHMENT “B”) would scoff that “Joe Biden Is Waging Class Warfare Without the War” (and, as history proved, without the class).

Fresh off his vanquishment of Trump 1.0 on the right and the Bern and Elizbeth Warren on the left, and perhaps looking forward to a torrent of taxpayer money rolling into his purview, the master of malarkey (if not mayhem or, even, mucous) proposed his plan for trying to fix everything—and said he wanted it financed by “tax increases on wealthy individuals and corporations”, just like the real progressives hated by MAGA.

What differentiated Biden from “the Democrats who were considered unelectable radicals for proposing the things he’s doing”, the Slaterists said, was the way that he talked. “Twelve of the 14 times he’s said Wall Street, it’s been to suggest that its analysts support his economic vision. He has mentioned fighting for U.S. companies (“to ensure that American businesses are positioned to compete and win on the global stage”) but not against them. At his most hostile, Biden will lament the disproportionate benefits accrued by “corporations” or the misguided ideas of “my Republican friends,” (Djonald UnChained Himself excepted) and Slate sliced and diced his contention that “we (the Bidenistas) don’t have anything against wealthy people” so long as they pay their “fair share.”

Instead, he MAGAphrased Liz and Bernie by praising the “backbone of this country”; the hardworking folks, “middle-class folks, people who built the country” and their defenders among the unions and Democratic Party.

Those less-than-middle class folks... fluck em!

After the woke drama of Barack Hussein Obama and the trauma of Trump, President Joe “began the game” with a healthy helping of support from pollsters at the Morning Consult (54-33) and Data for Progress. JPMorgan’s described Biden’s proposals as “manageable,” while Jeff Bezos said his company was “supportive of a rise in the corporate tax rate,” because, obviously, the billionaires and millionaires shop the Opulenzas, not Amazon.

“The long and short of it,” Slate concluded, was that corporate America did not view the Democratic president’s transformative tax-and-spend proposals as an existential threat and, on that long-ago Tax Day... before the wars in Ukraine, let alone Iran, before Covid and before the vril leaked out of Joe and the Democrats... well, a rosy scenario could still be imagined.

We presumed then, as now, world and national events might be “dire” (the wars, inflation, the President, the Pope, the wolves, the Shutdown... which Congress had pledged to end upon their return from Spring Break on Tuesday) but, barring American revolutionary or nuclear war, complications to the imposition and collection of Federal income taxes would continue to bounce off the IRS like peanuts off an elephant’s backside hide.

Not that there haven’t been changes... and quite possibly will be more this week... but in the typical yearly exchange of favors for favors as favor the well-to-do... well... expect the tax collectors to enjoy business as usual. (Even if, as may be the case amidst the KakiStasis in Washington, there are fewer revenewers on the job now, hence, persons of opportunistic mien may observe, and seize, advantages.)

For example, the military.

Whether a war of choice... as his critics contend... or a war of necessity to prevent America (and Israel and the uncaring world) from a nuclear-armed Iran or its proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, ISIS, al Qaida and others yet unnamed or identified, President Trump’s Good Friday message to America (NPR, ATTACHMENT ONE) proposed a crucifixion of domestic programs in order to bolster the budgets of the military services now engaged in what is increasingly appearing to be a Holy War against Iran.

Trump proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget, “the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.”

The increase for the Pentagon, some 44% of which had been “telegraphed” by the Republican president even before the Iran war began, would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10%.

"President Trump promised to reinvest in America's national security infrastructure, to make sure our nation is safe in a dangerous world," wrote Budget Director Russell Vought.

In this first address to America in April (before the second on Monday afternoon before the Tuesday deadline on Hormuz), the President, speaking privately to White House insiders on Wednesday, April Fool’s Day, said: "We're fighting wars. We can't take care of day care... (i)t’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things."

He said these “individual things” (and their attendant costs) should be delegated to the states. But there were also some non-defense expenditures that were allowed to seep through the cracks in the wall of war, including...

§ Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

§ A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice to focus on violent criminals and the president's promise to stop what the White House calls migrant crime.

§ A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for "construction and beautification" projects in Washington, D.C. including the someday Golden Ballroom in the ruins of the White House and a somehow Arch d’Trump-umpch elsewhere in D.C....

§ A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

Up on the cross would go “green energy, housing and health programs” like...

§ $15 billion from the Biden-era bipartisan infrastructure law (above), including funds for renewable energy projects and cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, grants (in the hope that the 2026 hurricane season will be as quiet as that of 2025)

§ Food, shelter and warmth would be taken from the poor through a 19% cut in the Department of Agriculture, ending certain university grants, a 13% cut for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and about a 12% decrease to the Health and Human Services department, including cuts to a low-income heating assistance program.

§ Cuts to what the White House called "woke programs" such as Community Services Block Grants, $106 million in funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and environmental issues.

THE DEFENDERS

The Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees applauded Trump's request for defense spending, saying the money “would ensure the country's military remains the most advanced in the world while confronting growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and others.”

"America is facing the most dangerous global environment since World War II," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

NPR (itself headed for the boneyard) added that the administration “is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to push part of president's beefed up defense spending through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year...” $1.1 trillion for defense coming through the regular appropriations process, “which typically requires support from both parties” to avoid a filibuster – plus another $350 billion through a budget reconciliation process “that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.”

THE DETRACTORS

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, called Trump's new budget "morally bankrupt" and noted costs associated with his beautiful, golden ballroom.

The top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, said the president was demanding a massive increase in defense while cutting billions from health care, housing and more.

"This budget represents 'America Last,'" Boyle said although POTUS announced he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that, as of April 3^rd, had reached 49 days.

Nonetheless, Wednesday’s Tax Day brought accusations of a “rigged” system and even outright fraud from the liberals at Common Dreams. (ATTACHMENT TWO)

Dreamer Stephen Prager charged the richest 0.1% of people on Earth with “hiding more than $2.8 trillion in offshore accounts to avoid taxes,” here in the U.S.A. but also in other countries.

“That money alone is more wealth than is owned by the entire bottom half of humanity, more than 4.1 billion people,” Prager charged, basing his contention on a report from Oxfam International, released on the 10th anniversary of the 2016 Panama Papers, which provided “an unprecedented look at how the world’s most powerful capitalists, financiers, political leaders, celebrities, and criminals exploited offshore tax havens to stash their money.”

Oxfam found that a “staggering” $3.5 trillion, more than 3.2% of the global gross domestic product, still remains in untaxed accounts. “That’s more than the entire GDP of France and is more than twice the combined wealth of the world’s 44 poorest nations,” the Oxscammers contended.

Prior to the recent military surcharge, the MAGA megabudget had already handed a trillion dollar tax cut to America’s wealthiest 1%, while slashing more than $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, food assistance, and other safety net programs. “It has been described by some economists as the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history.”

According to the Tax Justice Network’s Corporate Tax Haven Index, Caribbean islands under UK ownership, including the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda, are among the worst offenders. Other notable tax havens include Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

Individuals and corporations identified by NPR as tax cheats (indictable or not) include Elon Musk’s Tesla and Big Pharma’s AbbVie, Merck. Oxfam also called for taxes on “extreme wealth” as have leftists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) in Attachment Twenty, below.

Left of leftists... outright Communists, in fact (or, at the least, the sort of quasi-democratic Socialists of Jacobin... ATTACHMENT THREE) have seized upon one aspect of the income equality divide... a generational divide diatribe by one Josh Mound.

The lengthy explanation of how “centrists and the Right, who have long been desperate to cut and privatize Social Security” exploit the politics of division – usually expressed in the promulgation of racial and cultural hate to distract the bottom half... or 75 percent... or 99 percent from the prosecution of a class war as might be expressed by means ranging from the wealth taxes above and below and applicable to April 15^th, to the guillotine, applicable to the original Jacobins – are also being exploided to exploit the generation gap.

Mr. Mound contends that “(a) specter is haunting the United States — the specter of ‘total boomer luxury communism’. Or at least that’s what conservative pundits want younger generations to think.”

The term Total Boomer Luxury Communism (or, herafter TBLC) popped up in July, 2025 as a cynical riff on the utopian left’s vision of a post-scarcity “fully automated luxury communism” in an essay by Russ Greene in the American Mind, one of the house organs of the Claremont Institute.

Jacobists like Mound decry the multiplicity of self-styled “Claremonsters” from Claremont (a “quixotic”... tho’ probably anti-windmill... fusion of “Barry Goldwater’s free-market fundamentalism and Leo Strauss’s conservatism”), who have stocked Team Trump’s armada, while megaMAGA nabobs like investment banker Peter G. Peterson, hedge fund manager Thomas Klingenstein and similar non-producing, parasitic poobahs prosecute a “cold civil war” pitting conservatism against “woke communism” and “social justice.”

“The essence of TBLC,” Greene writes, “is that it redistributes wealth from younger families and workers to seniors, who are on average much richer.” The result, he argues, is a cohort of retirees living in a “Marxist paradise of hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening, and criticizing the American President after dinner.”

This “generational injustice,” Greene claims, is “driving every aspect of American decline — from skyrocketing national debt and the erosion of the defense industrial base to the despair of young people.” His remedy is to “radically overhaul America’s entitlement regime” by cutting Social Security and Medicare, even if it forces recipients — whom he calls “welfare queens” — back into the workforce or compels them to sell their homes.

Tumbling back through the history of Social Security to the New Deal, Mound recalls (if probably through archives) the war on “government-provided old-age pensions” as would lead to what human, corporate and foundational entities of opposition called “dependency and indigency” as would “pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.”

He also revisits Barry Goldwater who, in his disastrous 1964 campaign, made a proto-TBLC case against Medicare, quipping: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink?”

And, also, Ronald Reagan – who predicted that if Medicare became law, “you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Less, even unfamous, bankers, insurance men (women being rather scarce at the time), creepy crawlies out of think tanks like Heritage, CRC, the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, libertarians out of Reason and Cato and “a seemingly endless series of “deficit hawk” organizations”

As Republican Senator David Durenberger, chair of Americans for Generational Equity (AGE), put it, “The more America’s leaders talk about and think in terms of generational equity, the more effective AGE will be in its education program, and the better chance we will have of making the difference on crucial legislative issues.”

And, as AGE’s Phillip Longman wrote in the New York Times in agest past, “The Baby Boomers as a whole are far from ‘upwardly mobile’. . . .  A declining proportion of younger Americans own their own homes, and those who do are typically encumbered by unprecedented mortgage payments.” The problem, according to Longman, was that “Baby Boomers are paying an unprecedented share of their income to support the current older generation.”

But after a decade of triumphs (not including the failure of its preferred Presidential candidates — former Republican governor Pete du Pont and televangelist Pat Robertson — their campaign for the privatization of Social Security faltered following Durenberger’s use of the organization to boost his own reelection campaign.

Power passed into the pocket of the Democrats’ Leadership Council (DLC) who, likewise, lobbied for both cuts to and partial privatization of Social Security. The DLC argued that “millions of retirees, without regard to their need, reap windfalls from Social Security beyond the interest-adjusted value of their tax contributions into the system” at the expense of “millions of baby boomers” who “have paid steep payroll taxes for two decades and are struggling with their parents’ retirement needs even as they worry about their own.”

As the “Greatest Generation” aged and died and Boomers prospered... well, some of them... new right-wing generational warriors like Lead… or Leave (LOL) popped up. By 1992 LOL, now billing itself as “the largest grassroots college/twentysomething organization in the country” was publicizing its manifesto “Revolution X” in print and broadcast media but, again, after its ambitious agenda (including, Jacobin reported, a promised “Rock the Debt” concert “and 1996 election protests at which Gen Xers would burn their Social Security cards”) flatlined, more old fogies birthed and butchered more false flag floozies: Third Millennium (TM); the Democratic false front Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), and an anti-Social Security “Advisory Council” fronted by Slick Willie Clinton that also squirmed, squirted and crashed – courtesy of Monica Lewinsky.

With the war on Social Security back under the thumb of the Bush family Republicans – whose new vehicles, like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) and spurious Medicare Advantage chugged and staggered on into Barack Obama’s Simpson-Bowles commission, featuring tax cuts for the rich and healthcare cuts for the rest.

Jacobin’s Mister Mound’s take on Obamacare (or the Affordable Care Act: ACA) is that... at best... it has modestly reduced the growth of health care costs while driving up the public debt and enriching those least productive termites of the medical community with Americans bearing “far higher administrative costs — roughly $925 per person versus $245 in peer nations,” or, in other words, “well into Nordic territory” (albeit without Nordic-level coverage).

Mound actually noted that Donald Trump more or less backed off the war on Boomer relief in his first term (he still being one). But now, Trump 2.0 – flush with new cryptocash and supported by “conservative and centrist Democrat claims of generational inequity to distract from the real issues of economic inequality,” the Jacobins... rather reasonably, given their own ancestry... simply state that it’s more important than ever “to ensure that Social Security and Medicare aren’t cut before (the younger generation) can collect them. Taxing the rich is the best path forward, but it’s the one that deep-pocketed interests want most to avoid.”

So, they conclude, “stop focusing on generational warfare, and start focusing on class warfare.”

There’s much, much more in the Attachment and Jacobite charts and graphs that can be found here.

Cato, the libertarian agglomeration of pot smoking, wife swapping real estate speculators and Wall Street vipers already mentioned above, offered its own take on equality via the economic and culturally rightist Washington Examiner on March 23, 2026 (ATTACHMENT FOUR); this being, in the words of reporter Chelsea Follett, “a reality check on the inequality panic.”

Unfortunately, say the Libs and Xams, critics like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, singer Billie Eilish and NYC Mayor Zorro persist in the perversion of perceived inequality even as the Examiner and Catocrats insist that not only has global income inequality fallen over the long run — contrary to the popular narrative — “but inequality has also declined in education, health, and a host of other areas. The world is now more equal across a range of factors, from lifespan and childhood survival to internet access and schooling.”

Happy, happy days!

Over the past few years, “calls for a worldwide wealth tax, a vast increase in foreign aid spending, and other unprecedented measures are gaining steam across academia, non-profits, the press, and international organizations like the United Nations.

In short, the damage to human well-being was more limited than many feared. “Alarmist narratives shape public opinion,” Ms. Follett contends, “and encourage policymakers to pursue sweeping interventions that may do more harm than good.”

Wealth taxes, she proceeds, have their own problems, “from high administrative costs and enforcement challenges to low revenue production and invasion of financial privacy. These problems help explain why so many of the countries that have implemented wealth taxes in the past — such as France, Germany, and Sweden— later abolished the tax. Perhaps the worst of all, by discouraging risk-taking, wealth taxes suppress investment and growth, effects that would be felt in both rich and poor countries and would likely prove especially damaging to development in the world’s poorest economies.”

“Surprise!” a chorus growled and chortled as the federal income tax, as we know it, “was officially born on Feb. 3, 1913, when Congress ratified the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution after an on-again-off-again effort that lasted decades. (Investopedia, ATTACHMENT FIVE)

“Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that nothing is certain in this world but death and taxes. That was back in 1789 and it still holds true in the U.S. today,” wrote fiscal historian Vikki Velasquez, describing the permanent imposition of a federal income tax after former, brief ventures such as that occasioned by the Civil War, or by the 1894 Wilson Tariff Act (which the SCOTUS repealed a year later as unconstitutional).

The 1913 variant charged less than one percent of Americans only one percent of net income. “Numerous tweaks and add-ons” occurred as a result of World War Two with both the percentage of taxpayers and rates rising as the war expenses mounted.

Investopedia tracked developments such as the alternative minimum tax (AMT) created in 1969 because “it was found that a few hundred high-income individuals were able to use a combination of exclusions, deductions, and credits to pay little or no income tax,” according to Annette Nellen, director of the MST Program at San Jose State University. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) made numerous changes to the tax law, Nellen added, “including taxing ordinary and capital gains income at the same rate and there were only two brackets (15% and 28%).”

ATRA, the American Taxpayer Relief Act restored the top income tax rate to 39.6% in 2012 after it was cut to 35% by President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, but Trump 1.0’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) dropped it back to 38% in 2017.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) came along in 2022. According to Nellen, “The IRA included numerous new and modified energy credits for individuals and businesses. It's possible that some of these credits may be repealed or downsized as part of any extension of expiring provisions of the TCJA or new tax breaks such as not imposing income tax on tips or overtime pay of employees.”

While income taxes provide the largest proportion of the Federal Budget (despite the recent Trump tariff inceases), Washington also collects interest rate taxes, based on itemized deductions, gas taxes and the Sin and Excise Taxes on alcohol and tobacco (but not firearms).

Brookings/Tax Policy Center analyzed the “ugly history” of tax policy; reporter Howard Gleckman warning that “(e)xtreme partisanship makes tax policy more unstable than ever.” (9/26/25. ATTACHMENT SIX)

A SHRINKING TAX BASE

First, think about tax rates and the tax base. “When I came on the scene,” Mr. Gleckman reported, “the top marginal individual income tax rate was 70 percent. Today, it is roughly half that, at 37 percent.”

As a result of these changes, together with spending increasing as well, the Congressional Budget Office projects that, over the next decade, the gap between federal revenue and spending will reach 6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, or more than $2 trillion annually. 

“That simply is unsustainable. Yet few in Congress appear to show any real interest in doing anything about it.” 

Investopedia noted that much of the staff expertise that guided the TRA and other policy measures has moved on... often to more lucrative lobbying or legal jobs advising private sector clients.

“Thus, bills are increasingly partisan and, as a result, policy shifts with the political winds, and taxpayers are unable to plan more than a year or so ahead.”   

On top of all this, “the IRS is scaling back enforcement efforts, and Congress continues to slash the agency’s budget and staff, making administration of the income tax increasingly difficult.”

Currently, the White House and Congressional (narrow) majority is committed to cutting taxes and/or replacing them with volatile tariffs, but... looking ahead to the 2028 Presidential race and November midterms, will Trump’s exorbitant, constantly changing, counterproductive and “probably not sustainable” tariffs risk damaging the US economy and. 

What, then, will replace them? That, Investopedia’s Velasquez believes, “will be the next big question for tax policy.”

Perhaps new or higher “consumption taxes” suggests USA Today’s Daniel De Visé (April 11^th, ATTACHMENT SEVEN), specifying the proposed FairTax Act of 2025 which proposed a 23% federal sales tax to replace most federal taxes, and noted the proposal’s history and criticism that it would primarily benefit wealthy taxpayers.

Congress, so far, has agreed, so the FTA ’25 has become FTA ’26 and still “has yet to reach a vote in the full House or Senate.”

The United States does not currently have a national consumption tax. Other countries, including Japan, which has a 7.8% standard and 6.24% do... with reduced tax rate for items like food, drink and “some newspapers” (the “some” being perhaps intriguing to the press agents of politicians who believe that some media are out to get them and, so, should be warned against oppositioning). More than 175 countries, including all of Europe, impose a Value-Added Tax, which taxes goods and services at each stage of production. 

Consumption taxes as exist in the United States are on a state-by-state basis with almost each and every state imposing sales taxes, except for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, which instead allows cities to charge a local sales tax. California boasts the country’s highest state sales tax rate at 7.25%. 

“The FairTax Act would eliminate most current federal taxes in favor of a 23% federal sales tax. Tax experts have warned the act would mostly benefit the wealthy, who would see major tax cuts,” concludes Mister de Visé... therefore, any future of the FTA will depend upon the results of November’s midterm elections.

In the heat of tax season, Olivier Knox discussed the latest survey results from the Pew Research Center, which show 60% of Americans are very bothered by the idea that wealthy individuals and corporations don’t pay their fair share in taxes. (U.S. News, ATTACHMENT EIGHT)

With the rising cost of living likely to play a big part in this year’s midterms, anger over taxes could be a deciding factor.

Accordingly, cultural and economic conservatism were married, in the Washington Supreme Court, by a Seattle millionaire petitioning to allow a referendum effort on the state's new income tax law.

Let's Go Washington founder Brian Heywood... long a fighter for parental rights and against transgender participants in girls' sports... (Oregon Public Broadcasting, 4/5/26, ATTACHMENT NINE) filed an emergency petition that asks justices to direct Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to process the referendum paperwork submitted Monday that would allow Heywood’s group must submit signatures of 154,455 voters by June 10 to qualify for the fall ballot.

“Time is already running out. Not granting accelerated review of this matter would unfairly render the entire process moot by significantly limiting the time available,” to collect signatures, Heywood argued in court documents.

Opponents of the tax would need to turn in 308,911 signatures by July 2 to get an initiative on the ballot this year, or by Dec. 31 if they opt for an initiative to the Legislature.

Meanwhile, the Citizen Action Defense Fund also plans to sue over the tax, arguing that it’s unconstitutional. Rob McKenna, a former state attorney general and 2012 Republican candidate for Washington governor, will lead the litigation. It had not been filed as of Friday.

Public opposition to the new tax, a 9.9% levy on incomes over $1 million, gives Heywood hope. (New York Post, ATTACHMENT TEN) After over 100,000 Washingtonians registered their displeasure during public testimony on the bill, he said that, “unlike King Bob, we believe that the framers of our state’s constitution meant it.”

Let’s Go Washington must gather 200,000 signatures by June to qualify the referendum for the upcoming election.

Heywood is confident it can be done.

“Our state constitution is the law of the land and not a suggestion that the legislature and the governor can ignore on a whim,” he said.

“Washington’s constitution is clear, and the courts have been equally clear for nearly a century — income is property, and progressive income taxes are unconstitutional under existing law,” countered McKenna.

Some of the Washington State peanuts speaking up in the New York gallery expressed outrage against the tax.

“Stop punishing people for working and making money,” exclaimed DD. “Stop the endless flow of freebies to those who won’t work and feel entitled to the fruit of someone else’s labor.”

And, in view of the runaway businesses which allegedly include Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and local and regional firms such as Bulwark Capital Manager, another mature respondent, answering to Granny513, posted that “...Seattle pro ball teams may have more trouble recruiting high salaried players with this millionaire tax. They will have to pay more to offset the almost 10 percent income tax.”

Whereas state taxing policies may be cited as cause for runaway corporations (or at least their headquarters), liberals say that Federal tax policies are already causing many businesses to relocate their tax liabilities by employing overseas cutouts to cut or even wholly avoid American taxes.

Michael Ettlinger of the Institute on Taxation And Economic Policy (ITEP) justified state and local resistance to President Trump’s tax and tariff policy which, he explained, (ATTACHMENT ELEVEN) has enacted “large tax cuts that primarily benefit the well-off and corporations, dramatically curtailed IRS enforcement, and issued legally problematic regulations.”

These tax cuts have come at a substantial price, according to ITEP. “The legislated tax reductions passed by Congress and signed by the president in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) are forecast to add $4.6 trillion to the federal government’s debt over the coming decade. In the same bill, to whittle down that price tag, net spending cuts amount to a $1.2 trillion reduction, with the lion’s share coming from health care,” increasing income inequality in 2026 and causing taxes overall to go up for those in the lower income 95 percent of the population. For the top 5 percent, however, taxes will go down on average.

“Although tariffs do affect higher-income Americans,” Ettlinger acknowledged, “they claim a smaller share of their income.” Through several graphs and charts accompanying the article, ITEP detailed not only inequality, but debt (and debt service payments), a growing Federal deficit and the concomitant decrease in charitable contributions made by wealthy Americans shielding their excess cash from the Taxman.

To put the $117 billion going to the top 1 percent in 2026 in perspective, he added, thist is more than the federal government will spend in 2026 on “the combined budgets of the Department of Education, Department of Transportation, Department of Justice, the State Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts.:

Or, perhaps in response to the contention that state and local tax policies might cause some professional athletes to relocate and federal levies might cause ballplayers to move back to the Dominican Republic or other places, with that $117 billion sufficient to buy “every Major League Baseball team (all of them together) or pay for the combined cost of every wedding in the country for a year, as we described in July along with other comparisons.”

See the abovenamed and more ITEP charts and graphs here.

1440’s online explanation of “why the IRS is necessary” (ATTACHMENT TWELVE) described the agency... a division of the US Treasury Department created in 1862 that enforces the Internal Revenue Code— whose roughly 75,000 employees collected roughly $5T in tax revenue.

Given its role in diverting household income streams, it also has a bad reputation. “In a ranking of 16 well-known federal agencies by popularity (in 2024), the IRS came in dead last, behind both the Department of Justice and the Department of Education.”

1440 includes several useful reference on assessment and enforcement of the Code... including the story of the Beatles' "Taxman" (from whence our title is derived: Read more here)

Perhaps some of the hatred found in 1440 showed up in polls by Pew Research (April 6, ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

“Roughly six-in-ten adults now say the feeling that some wealthy people (61%) and corporations (60%) don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot.” Pew broke down the causes of this disgruntlement to complexity (51%)

Polls within the polls divided results by partisanship – thus, the feeling that some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share (81% of Democrats vs. 41% of Republicans) or, conversely, that poor people don’t pay their fair share (16% Rep. vs. 8% Dem.) while complaints about complexity were almost dead even.

Pew also broke down its results by ethnicity, by wealth (or its lack), age (but not sex).

U.S. News (April 7, ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN) also cited some of Pew’s findings, but added stats on who thinks who pays how much (the figure of 60% - up from 56% in 2023, 49% in 2021, and 51% in 2019).

Knox ventured that he “(wasn’t) sure what was going on in 2021,” (try, oh, Covid?) but Pew’s numbers show that was a recent high-water mark – 44% – for Americans saying they were paying the right amount. It’s currently 33%.

Tax Foundation.org. tracked the influence of disease and tariffs, investment and savings, trade policy and, of course, partisanship.

“The last time the United States ran a trade surplus was in 1975; every year since, the United States has run a trade deficit. That the United States has consistently run trade deficits for decades is not an imminent economic problem. Net imports, another term for a trade deficit, can reflect the strength of the US economy in attracting foreign investment and in serving as a safe, reliable haven for foreign capital. When net imports finance the capital stock, it allows the US to enjoy a higher level of productivity and growth than otherwise would occur.” (March 13, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN)

“In 2025, the trade deficit fell by just $2.1 billion compared to 2024. The reduction in the trade deficit was due to an increase in the trade surplus of services, as the goods deficit actually increased by $25.5 billion year over year.”

Tax Foundation broke down tariff rates by countries and goods... for example, Chinese Fentanyl... in predictions for the next ten years. Not surprisingly, the forecasts all predicted a continuation of inflation.

Abroad, the Telegraph U.K. (ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) offered up a pre-April Fool cacophony of financial changes for British taxpayers to waddle through.

As in the colonies, the English pay the Taxman – and even earlier, on April 6^th and, as in America, there’s nowhere to go but up. More government controlled utilities means more taxes... also going up “are water bills, car taxes, mobile phone and broadband prices and the cost of a TV licence.” A newfangled Making Tax Digital finally arrives for sole traders and landlords with more than £50,000 of income. The conservative Telegraph calls it “dreaded”.

A taxation survey by the World Population Review (ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN) found that the highest personal income tax rates were in Finland (57.65%), followed by Japan, Denmark, Austria and Sweden. The lowest rates were essentially zero in a number of usually small, poor, Third World states – some of which charge sales and corporate taxes and then a few wealthy Gulf states (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar) swimming in oil revenues.

The United States fell somewhere in the middle at an average 37%... better than Ireland and India, a little worse than Algeria or Mexico. See listings at attachment.

It’s not good enough for the AMERICANS for TAX FAIRNESS whose April 13^th study of the billionaires of Arizona found... to nobody’s surprise... that they were “flying high while the state’s workers and families struggle to afford the basics,” according to a new report by Opportunity Arizona and the ATF

Publishing charts and graphs of the wealthiest, ATF identified the richest as members of the Garcia family who defied popular perceptions of Latinos as poor – profiting mightily off Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

“With nearly half of Arizona’s SNAP recipients losing access, the effects of OBBBA are devastating,” said Ben Scheel of Opportunity Arizona. “Families everywhere can’t afford food or healthcare while an Arizona-failed sports team owner and predatory lending billionaire got $9 billion RICHER in just one year,” while Americans “are forced to choose whether to pay rent or get their medications.”

“The return of Donald Trump has been a boom for billionaires but a bust for average workers and families,” said David Kass, ATF’s executive director.

ATF also published a list of the richest members of Congress, many of whom have been using special “pass-through” tax breaks and/or foreign accounts to hold and increase their plunder. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) enjoys the greatest net worth ($664 million) and the quiverquant website can tell you how much your representative makes.

ATF told some stories of the victims of injustice and inequality – as individual or groups as, for example, cuts to Medicaid that are closing the hospital in Forks, WA leading to more disease and death.

In addition to Federal tax changes, cities and states are going their own way with leftists crying “inequality” and red state rednecks saying that oppressive laws will drive wealthy business owners and their jobs out of town. (Fox Business, April 13, ATTACHMENT NINETEEN)

"They do have other places to go. It's ultimately perhaps counterproductive if you want to fund certain programs at certain levels," Tax Foundation senior fellow Jared Walczak said.

The debate comes as some high-tax states are already grappling with out-migration. IRS data shows residents and businesses are moving from states like California, New York and Illinois to states such as Florida and Texas in recent years — a trend policymakers are increasingly factoring into tax decisions.

With Federal funding cut due to the war, red state homeowners are squeezed by rising home values have driven property tax bills higher in many regions, fueling calls for relief and adding pressure on lawmakers to find alternative revenue sources before the claws of debt sink in and haul them off to civilian life. Demonic Democratic and DEI media, foundations and chitterbugs of the private and public persuasions are sharpening their boxcutters for November, and the grim commanders are stirring.

One such agglomeration of Blueys... the Institute On Taxation And Economic Policy (ITEP), whom we have encountered before (above)... are getting their belt buckles dislooped over what they now contend are eighty eight profitable U.S. corporations who paid zero... that’s nothing, nada... ZERO federal income tax in 2025.

While the biggest U.S. corporations have avoided taxes for decades (and under bipartisan administrative somnolence), “it appears that corporate tax avoidance has increased in the most recent year,” according to ITEP’s institutional inmates Matthew Gardner and Spandan Marasini. (April 14^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY) This is, at least in part, due to two separate packages of corporate tax cuts pushed through by the Trump administration: “last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).”

Moving on to mathematics, these tax-avoiding corporations enjoyed more than $105 billion in U.S. pretax income in 2025. The statutory federal income tax rate for corporate profits is 21 percent, which means these rocket 88 corporations would have paid a collective total of $22.1 billion for the year had they paid that rate on their 2025 income. Instead, they received $4.7 billion in tax rebates.

Oozing and cruising along, this means the total federal corporate income tax breaks enjoyed by these companies “comes to $26.7 billion when measured against the 21 percent statutory rate.  Measured against the 35 percent corporate income tax rate that was in effect before the two corporate tax cuts pushed through by Republicans and President Trump since 2017,” ITEP concludes that these companies “collectively cut their income taxes by $41 billion in 2025 alone.”

That’s two thirds of ten percent of a whole Musk!

ITEP’s roster of tax ducklings include Tesla itself, Southwest Airlines, Yum (owners of the President’s favorites KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) and a scouge of techy, AI and cryptic cheatmates, See a full listing in the Attachment.

The authors attribute much of the corporate savings to “accelerated depreciation”, which provision in the 2025 tax law allows companies to immediately write off capital investments—the most extreme version of tax depreciation— and “helped more than half of these companies reduce their federal income tax last year.” Others exploited the federal research and experimentation (R&E) credit to substantially reduce their federal income taxes in 2025.

Some lucky snakecharmers used both.

Tesla, again, took advantage of the lax lacklaws as did Southwest and some others... 3M, HP, Disney and PayPal.

Other tax dodging ploys include a new variant of the R&D expenses gifted by Congress last year, the Foreign-Derived Deduction Eligible Income (FDDEI) deduction, a writeoff for executive stock options, and other corporate tax cuts pushed through by Republican leaders and the Trump administration in 2017 and 2025.

Thus, Tax Day, Wednesday, arrived with the millions sweating payment or looking forward to refunds of maybe a few dollars or even a few hundred to enjoy a treat from Yum – the billionaires locking their wallets and, according to Politico’s polling and summary that arrived before dawn (April 15, 4:45 AM, ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE), Republicans hoping that their tax cuts would offer giant political benefits, with the rabble receiving super-sized refunds and then rewarding them at the ballot box to vote for the candidates that their Masters’ money directed them to support.

But that “doesn’t look like it’s going to happen,” opined Politico’s Bernie Becker, who believes that... even with their refund checks in hand... Americans are experiencing less gratitude and more attitude as their savings are eaten away at the grocery store, the gas pumps, the rent collectors’ or bank mortgage bureaus and, of course, by the war.

Even the most fervent of tax-cut evangelists is concerned, stated Mr. Becker.

“Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform said Tuesday that a quick solution to the conflict with Iran could reduce some of the pressure on prices that might currently be overshadowing tax cuts.

“But that’s not guaranteed,” Norquist said at a pre-Tax Day event hosted by his group. “I run a taxpayer group. War’s kind of out of my control sometimes.”

There are some winners for the President and his allies to encourage in November... some of the lowest paid service workers will enjoy better after-tax brass in pocket due to changes in tipped incomes, overtime, and incentives to seniors, children and auto purchasers (although Mr, Becker called that last “more of a dud”.

But even Fox News couldn’t parse the problem that their pollsters warned, finding that seven in 10 voters “believe their tax burden is too high, largely because the wealthy aren’t paying enough.”

So as an already superheated spring slides into an un-endless summer with the witches of Halloween and Election day following, as the refunds are spent and the war and inflation seem likely to persist, the vultures are gathering – and the baddest of all the Democratic bad birds, The Bern, chose April Fools’ Day to propose changes in tax law that claw back... not just billions... trillions from the nobilities, gentilities and tax cheat of America.

“Never before in American history have so few had so much wealth and power,” croaked the Bern. (GUK, ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO)

“Today, the top one per cent owns more wealth than the bottom 93%. One man, Elon Musk, worth $805bn (estimates on tax day, two weeks later, cut this to only $636bn), owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households.” And last year, after receiving the largest tax break in history from Donald Trump, the 938 billionaires in America (again, the last report upped this to 1,135 – ranging from Musk on down to bottom-hangers like Oprah and Taylor Swift) became $1.5tn richer. Since he was elected, President Trump and his family have become $4bn richer.

Be they in the hundreds, or, now, in the thousands, the billionaires... as “(n)ever before in American history” control what we see, hear, and read in the media – never before in American history “have we seen a ruling class, within a corrupt campaign finance system, wield the kind of political power it has today.”

Bottom line, says the Bern: “the richest people in America have never ever had it so good!”

That is one reality, he continues, as opposed to the other reality.

“The American working class has been under savage attack for years. Over the last many decades there has been an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity. Despite that, the average American worker is making almost $20 a week less today than he or she did 53 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.

According to the Rand Corporation, over the last 50 years, $79tn in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Almost all of the gains in worker productivity have gone to the top 1%.

“In America today, billionaires now pay a lower effective tax rate than the average worker,” the Bern burned. “Elon Musk paid an effective tax rate of less than 3.3%, while the average truck driver paid 8.4%. Jeff Bezos, now worth $223bn, paid an effective tax rate of less than 1%, while the average firefighter paid 8.7%.

“Michael Bloomberg, worth $109bn, paid an effective tax rate of just 1.3%, while the average registered nurse paid 13.3%.”

In 2006, Warren Buffett memorably said: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

And Warren Buffett? His tax rate was just 0.1%, Saudners reported, “while the average schoolteacher paid 9.8%.”

That is why, Sen. Sanders says, “I recently introduced a bill that would establish a 5% wealth tax on the 938 billionaires in America who collectively are worth more than $8.2tn. These 938 billionaires constitute 0.000003% of the population.

“Over a 10-year period, this bill would raise $4.4tn.”

The money would go to a barrel of bums... $3,000 handouts to every American man, woman and child making under $150K/yr., subsidizing universal childcare, adding dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare, build affordable housing, pay schoolteachers a minimum of $60,000/yr., cover home healthcare through Medicaid and repeal Trump’s BBB healthcare cuts.

“If this legislation had been enacted last year, Elon Musk would have owed $42bn more in taxes, leaving him with just $792bn to survive.

“Mark Zuckerberg would have owed $11bn more, leaving him with a meager $209bn to feed his family. Jeff Bezos would also have owed about $11bn more, leaving him with just $207bn to put a roof over his head.

As the Burn quoted Justice Louis Brandeis’ “profound” 1933 observation: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

“Let’s choose democracy over oligarchy,” Sanders concluded.

“Let’s create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%.”

	IN the NEWS: APRIL 10th, 2026 to APRIL 16th, 2026
Friday, April 10, 2026 Dow: 47,918.57	Republicans block Democratic bill to end the Iranian war as closure of the Hormuz Straits cuts world oil supply and raises prices – at the pump, for now, but as it lingers, the supply chain will be rusted and food (affected not only by transport but by the lack of fertilizer for farmers to plant their 2026 crops), clothing, other imports, exports and deports will be impacted. Politicians promise that peace talks will begin tomorrow. The first postwar inflation report is out and it’s not good (see below). The Fed says it’s the worst in four years, with the war damage complicated by Trump’s tariffs... which are facing challenges in court. And the hits keep on coming, the troubled USPS announces it will raise prices on first class stamps to 82¢. But there’s good news too, this Friday, the Artemis Two “Integrity” capsule touches down off San Diego at 8 PM. The heat shields successfully battle 5,000° temperatures and then three parachutes float the four astronauts back home. They are taken aboard the U.S.S. John Murtha for medical examinations, after which they go back to their families in Houston.
Saturday, April 11, 2026 Dow: Closed	The cherry blossoms are out in Washington due to an early spring. They were a gift from Japan in 1912 for an “enduring friendship” which would run into problems a few decades later. NASA headquarters welcomes the astronauts back with celebrations and celebrity horn-ins plus speeches by spokespersons Alana Johnson and Harold Hu who say the moonshot program is on track for Artemis Three next year and the actual landing by Artemis Four in 2028. The crew holds their first press conference; Reid Wiseman citing the view of Earth from space, saying: “When you’re out there, you just want to get back to your families.” Jere,y Hanson says “We are a mirror reflecting Earth; if you like what you see, look a little deeper.” NASA’s Jared Isaacman says forget the moon – we are now on target to go to Mars. President Trump, announcing His naval blockade of Hormuz is “calling Iran’s bluff” according to TV Colonel Steve Ganyard. Nobody asks what will happen if America sinks a Russian or Chinese tanker but there are some raised eyebrows at the fact of the USA and Iran both blockading the straits. Veep Vance touches down in Pakistan and says he’ll extend “an open hand” if Iran surrenders. His boss calls the Iranians “dishonest” but says the Israeli/Lebanese war is a different matter and the Lebanese PM breaks off talks with Israel after 300 more civilians killed. DefSec/WarSec Hegseck says “we want a victory with a capital V. guided by the Hand of God.” Inflation Nation investigators call the rise in gas prices the highest since 1967. You Tube raises subscription fees by $4, Southwest raises baggage fees.
Sunday, April 12, 2026 Dow: Closed	A weary Vance admits that 21 hours of negotiations with Iran result in failure, but still says that there’s more bad news for Iran than for America. Iran insists on its right to nuclear weapons. President Trump says the failure doesn’t matter to him, he’s on his way to a UFC fight with Marco Rubio. Russia chooses not to honor the Orthodox Easter, dropping more explosives on Ukraine. It’s Talkshow Sunday again – Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va) says we need to extend the ceasefire past April 21^st... an impotent ceasefire being better than resumption of the war. Citing Trump’s tearing up our old Iranian nuke deal, Kaine says: “if you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.” Former CentComm director Joseph Votel warns that we have to be careful about bombing civilians and infrastructure because it will provoke Iran to attack our allies... now in the Gulf, not Europe. A round table and a half begins with the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser says that, instead of regime change, we just “swapped out” one Khameini for his even crazier son and, from NPR, Mary Louise Kelly says we should all be “rooting for peace” but “no trust is a very high hurdle.” Then come four more... liberal Donna Brazile says it’s just round one with a lot of “sniffing”, Sarah Isgur says Trump just followed the last seven Presidents on Iran... former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opines that POTUS went to the UFC to show Iran he doesn’t care “which makes him stronger”. They also discuss Melania and Swalwell. On Face the Nation, Michael Leiter says we shouldn’t be surprised that Iranians lie, but hopes we do not go back to “Kinetic activity”. Sen, Mark Warner (D-Va) warns that China is sending drones to Iran. On “The Hill”, Rep. Dan Bacon says that Congressional Dems and Pubs are working on a deal to evict sex criminals Swalwell and Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Tx) because neither can afford to lose votes.
Monday, April 13, 2026 Dow: 48,218.25	War with Iran not sufficing, Djonald UnChurched picks a new fight with a new foe... Pope Leo – calling his opposition to the war “weak” and he’s “a loser”, not like his MAGAbro Louis. Trump tips a Door Dash delivery woman $100, releases a doctored photo of Bruce Springsteen and then a portrait of himself as Jesus, curing a sicko whom cynics say “looks like Epstein.” Gov. Ron DeSantis kisses Donnie’s “clothed” backside Still, the war goes on. Enraged at Trump’s ignoring him, Iranian Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf tells Americans to be “nostalgia for the $5 gallon of gas.” Rubio, probably wishing he were back at the UFC arena, sits in at a meeting between Israelis and Lebanese, but without Hezbollah, so he slinks back home like Vance. Two of the four disgraced Congressthings do the prudent thing and resign. Eric Swalwell also drops out of the California governor’s race; Tony Gonzales capitulates to relatives of one of his “dates” who killed herself after their meeting. Swallwell remains on the ballot, but does this now mean a win for Gavin Newsome?
Tuesday, April 14, 2026 Dow: 48,535.99	The Pope/Trump feud escalates with thre American cardinals saying that Iran is not a “just war”. POTUS replies that the world cannot afford a nuclear Iran as the cans and TACOs fly... the difference is now that the U.S. downgrades his forever ban to a twenty year prohibition on Iranian nuke while the mullahs in Tehran counter with a five year hold. Investors still believe Trump’s optimistic gloating and the markets keep rising – as do gas prices. Eeee-conmystics say that United and American want to merge, effectively creating a supermonopoly in the skies. On earth, 7/11 will close 600 outlets, average prices for new cars top $50K dooming the young and poor to bicycles or shoe leather. Teenage gamers learn coding to get into cyberhacks for big steals and big prison time. A disgruntled AI troll shoots at Open AI CEO Sam Altman’s house – two days after another throws a Molotov cocktail at him! Doctors and police call for stronger protections against teenage hacking.
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 Dow: 48,483.22	It’s Tax Day in America (and for the Jews, Holocaust Remembrance Day) The Wall Street Journal reports that staffing cuts at the IRS encourage more cheating. The layoffs have saved $46B but cost an estimated $643B. Cutbacks are leading to delays in refunds for honest taxpayers but TV – con mystic Richard Rubin judges AI software OK for small filers, but not for big business. In Veep Vance’s struggle between loyalty to God and loyalty to Trump, the latter is an easy victor. Vance puts on his Don Corleaone mask and warns Leo to watch what he says, or else! America is God’s country because we won World War Two, and Leo’s just a nobody from Chicago. Mixed messages ooze out of the MidEast. Because Iran is blockading the Straits of Hormuz from its side (and thus causing oil prices, gas at the pump and, as key supply chain links like truck transport and agricultural fertilizer falter, everywhere) Djonald UnHinged orders the American Navy to blockade the other side of the straits – just to assure that nobody gets through. DefSec turned WarSec HegSeck orders the Navy to fight and sink any tanker trying to get through – which may lead to... let’s say, complications... if we blow up Russian or Chinese ships. Time unveils its 2026 list of the world’s most important people. Notably, Trump is snubbed.
Thursday, April 16, 2026 Dow: 48,578.92	President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is now winning the war and winning back territory seized by Mad Vlad Putin due to his deployment of robot soldiers who can kill Russians without being killed themselves... and even if they are, they’re robots. Russia issues more nuke war warnings, but the U.K. says it will send drones to help Ukraine, but not the U.S. while Israel and Lebanon agree to a cease fire of their own – but not with Hezbollah. Not to worry... despite the war and its effect on gas prices, thus overall inflation, the Dow is up a bit, the SP 500 a bit more and the tech-heavy Nasdaq soaring to a record high. Feddie Powell, slated to retire in May, says he won’t go until a successor is appointed and confirmed, inciting Trump to try to fire him again. Other puppets in Team Trump are experiencing difficulties. Congress files five articles of impeachment against HHS RFK Junior who responds by cutting of the penis of a roadkill raccoon to “study” it, while former Trump attorney John Eastman is disbarred in California. Bad, but not as bad as former Virginia Lt. Gov., a Democrat, who murders his wife, then kills himself. Kanye’s French concert is cancelled following his cancellation at Glastonbury U.K. due to his anti-Semitic rants. Ants, 2,200 of them, are smuggled out of Kenya, but smuggler is arrested.
The first Inflation Report since the beginning of the Iran War and closing of the Straits of Hormuz and the effect on gas prices for Joneses was costly, as expected (but at least the 21% hike was not as bad as fuel oil inflaton, which we do not count) and the total was only slightly under one percent. And conservative Catholics (like Veep Vance) are going to have to decide whether to follow the President or the Pope into Heaven (which, at this point, looks like a gas station with cheap prices).

THE DON JONES INDEX

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

(REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

Gains in indices as improved are noted in GREEN. Negative/harmful indices in RED as are their designation. (Note – some of the indices where the total went up created a realm where their value went down... and vice versa.) See a further explanation of categories HERE

ECONOMIC INDICES		(60%)
CATEGORY	VALUE	BASE	RESULTS by PERCENTAGE			SCORE		OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS
INCOME	(24%)	6/17/13 revised 1/1/22	LAST	CHANGE	NEXT	LAST WEEK	THIS WEEK	THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...
Wages (hrly. Per cap)	9%	1350 points	4/10/76	+0.161%	4/26	1,893.61	1,896.65	https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.38
Median Inc. (yearly)	4%	600	4/10/76	+0.056%	4/24/76	1,128.11	1,128.74	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 51,944
Unempl. (BLS – in mi)	4%	600	4/10/76	-2.33%	4/26	542.60	542.60	http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/  4.3
Official (DC – in mi)	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.12%	4/24/76	204.56	204.32	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    7,670
Unofficl. (DC – in mi)	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.12%	4/24/76	239.07	238.79	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    14,331
Workforce Participation Number Percent	2%	300	4/10/76	-0.005% -0.012%	4/24/76	295.79	295.76	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    In 162,716 Out 105,148 Total: 267,864 60.746
WP % (ycharts)*	1%	150	4/10/76	+0.162%	4/26	150.22	150.22	https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.90
OUTGO	(15%)
Total Inflation	7%	1050	4/10/76	+0.9%	4/26	920.05	911.77	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.9
Food	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.0%	4/26	259.19	259.19	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.0
Gasoline	2%	300	4/10/76	+21.2%	4/26	262.47	206.83	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm    +21.2
Medical Costs	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.3%	4/26	270.91	270.10	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.3
Shelter	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.0%	4/26	239.10	239.10	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.0
WEALTH
Dow Jones Index	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.80%	4/24/76	371.32	374.30	https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 48,578.92
Home (Sales) (Valuation)	1% 1%	150 150	4/10/76	-2.69% +2.71%	4/24/76	133.12 260.67	129.54 267.74	https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics Sales (M):  3.98 Valuations (K):  408.8
Millionaires (New Category)	1%	150	4/10/76	+0.06%	4/24/76	136.91	136.90	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    24,164
Paupers (New Category)	1%	150	4/10/76	+0.034%	4/24/76	135.18	135.14	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    36,829
GOVERNMENT	(10%)
Revenue (trilns.)	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.13%	4/24/76	473.18	473.79	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    5,432
Expenditures (tr.)	2%	300	4/10/76	+0.06%	4/24/76	292.09	291.93	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    7,111
National Debt tr.)	3%	450	4/10/76	+0.074%	4/24/76	346.96	346.70	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    39,128
Aggregate Debt (tr.)	3%	450	4/10/76	+0.091%	4/24/76	370.76	370.43	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    107,477
TRADE	(5%)
Foreign Debt (tr.)	2%	300	4/10/76	-0.13%	4/24/76	254.35	254.03	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    9,462
Exports (in billions)	1%	150	4/10/76	+4.20%	4/26	195.91	195.91	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 314.8
Imports (in billions))	1%	150	4/10/76	-4.17%	4/26	138.64	138.64	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 372.1
Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)	1%	150	4/10/76	+4.89%	4/26	247.48	247.48	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 57.3
ACTS of MAN	(12%)
World Affairs	3%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	470.08	469.61	Hungarian voters oust Trump/Putin ally Orban. American influencer found dead in Zanzibar. Second Turkish school shooting kills nine. Spain legalizes 5,000 migrants.
War and terrorism	2%	300	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	284.02	283.74	American teen terrorists from “764” cult fling bombs, behead dogs. Adult terrorist vandalizes US C-130 planes... in Ireland!
Politics	3%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	455.18	454.72	Swalwell (D-Ca) and Gonzales (R-Tx) resign from Congress in sex crime scandals, both now face criminal charges. Criminal charges against One Six Proud Boys and Oath Keepers vacated. Polls show Trump support dropping but the good news for ‘Pubs is that, at the National Action Network, Kamala Harris floats a 2028 campaign.
Economics	3%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	428.77	428.34	Fed reports record inflation and World Economic Outlook predicts new Great Depression but investors still trust Trump. United/American merger called “monopolistic”. Corporations are firing experienced workers and replacing them with younger, cheaper trainees and AI robots. Nonprofit buys non-profitable Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Crime	1%	150	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	204.17	203.97	Machete man stabs 3 at GC Terminal, killed by police after shouting: “I am Lucifer!” Jersey masked maniac shoots Chik Fil-A diners, shooters target AI CEO Sam Altman’s house... twice! School shootings in Oklahoma and Turkey (first) averted by heroes but second Turkish trauma kills eleven.
ACTS of GOD	(6%)
Environment/Weather	3%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	279.42	279.14	West Coast finally eases up on heat, wildfires and, here & there, floods. The Midwest gets storms, hail and tornadoes, record heat E. in NY and DC while heat and drought-caused wildfires strike Naples, Fl. down south. Way down south climate change endangers Emperor Penguins. “Super typhoon” batters U.S. Northern Mariana islands.
Disasters	3%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	464.46	464.00	800 creepy girls enroll in Camp Mystic as deadly flooding investigation continues. 100 killed in Nigerian air strike on wrong target. 30 more killed in Haitian stampede. Automated garbage truck picks up woman and squeezes her to death.
LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX		(15%)
Science, Tech, Education	4%	600	4/10/76	+0.1%	4/24/76	621.07	621.69	AI fighters attack Sam Altman’s home and person twice – perhaps because TV-techsters say AI chatbot advice is mostly wrong. LA settles teachers’ strike.
Equality (econ/social)	4%	600	4/10/76	+0.2%	4/24/76	669.02	670.36	Diverse Artemis astronauts touch down and begin their round of honors. Virginia Gov. signs bill ending subsidies to neo-Confederates.
Health	4%	600	4/10/76	+0.1%	4/24/76	414.22	414.63	TV docs say high dose flu shots inhibit Alzheimers and new pancreatic cancer drug doubles life expectancy. Teen births in U.S. hit record low. 300K Hyundais recalled for bad seatbelts, FDA recalls bad Xanax. Lululemon carcinogenic yoga pants sued for “forever chemicals”. Latest mental health trend “Scream Clubs” based on Janov book go viral. Florida doc arrested for murder after removing liver instead of spleen. Reality TV star “Dr. Pimple Popper” suffers stroke.
Freedom and Justice	3%	450	4/10/76	+0.1%	4/24/76	479.20	479.68	Mister Hooker not charged in wife’s disappearance in Bahamas. Prince Harry sues Lady Di’s charity for libel. Driver who hit and killed jogger sues his family for giving him PTSD. Jury convicts Ticketmaster/Live Nation of monopolistic gouging as more live shows become affordable, but some refuse to accept cash for their tickets.
CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS			(6%)
Cultural incidents	3%	450	4/10/76	+0.2%	4/24/76	588.99	590.17	Rory McIlroy wins 4^th Masters. Deep red SC state senate honors deep blue fired host Colbert. WNBA #1 pick: UConn’s Azzi Fudd will chase wabbits for Dallas. RockRoll HoF inductees include Phil Collins, Sade, Billy Idol; Mariah Carey snubbed. Partisans dispute whether Justin Bieber flopped or rocked Coachella. Super Mario wins B.O., summer of coming sequels includes 67 year old Madonna’s “Confessions”, 99 year old Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs” and Top Gun Three. Dead Val Kilmer revived through AI in new movie. Bio of video gamer turned plane hijacker SkyKing revives old Sky King series. RIP: rapper Afrikaa Bambaatta, Bollywood singer Asha Bhosle, Mount Everest climber Jim Whittaker
Miscellaneous incidents	4%	450	4/10/76	-0.1%	4/24/76	551.75	551.20	New World screw worm found 90 mi. from U.S.A.; rabid bats invade the South. Boston’s “singing sewer worker” goes viral. TP arsonist in California says he set the $500M blaze because he was underpaid.

The Don Jones Index for the week of April 10^th through April 16^th, 2026 was DOWN 54.45 points

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action againth parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM NPR

TRUMP BUDGET SEEKS $1.5 TRILLION IN DEFENSE SPENDING ALONGSIDE DOMESTIC PROGRAM CUTS

Updated April 3, 2026 6:31 PM ET

President Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon, some 44%, had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president's plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10%.

TAKEAWAYS FROM TRUMP'S TOUGH WEEK, AS WAR AND GAS PRICES TAKE THEIR TOLL

"President Trump promised to reinvest in America's national security infrastructure, to make sure our nation is safe in a dangerous world," wrote Budget Director Russell Vought.

The president's annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration's values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration's priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

This year's White House document is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday.

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

"We're fighting wars. We can't take care of day care," Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

"It's not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things," he said. "They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal."

MONEY FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AND NATIONAL PARKS

Among the priorities the White House called for:

§ Supporting the Trump administration's immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating aspects of a refugee resettlement aid program, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last's year's increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

§ A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice to focus on violent criminals and the president's promise to stop what the White House calls migrant crime.

§ A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for "construction and beautification" projects in Washington, D.C..

§ A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

CUTS TO GREEN ENERGY, HOUSING AND HEALTH PROGRAMS

§ Cancels more than $15 billion from the Biden-era bipartisan infrastructure law, including funds for renewable energy projects and cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, grants.

§ 19% cut in the Department of Agriculture, ending certain university grants, a 13% cut for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and about a 12% decrease to the Health and Human Services department, including cuts to a low-income heating assistance program.

The White House is touting cuts of what it calls "woke programs" that often direct federal investments toward low-income communities. The budget used the word "woke" 34 times.

For example, the administration is looking to cut Community Services Block Grants, which funds activities such as financial and job counseling and helping people obtain adequate housing. The administration says its cuts would target grants "hijacked by radicals" to promote equity-building and green energy initiatives.

The president also seeks to cut $106 million in funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which it says has "pushed radical gender ideology onto children."

SUPPORTERS AND DETRACTORS

The Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees applauded Trump's request for defense spending, saying the money would ensure the country's military remains the most advanced in the world while confronting growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and others.

"America is facing the most dangerous global environment since World War II," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

The top Democrat on House Budget Committee, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, said the president was demanding a massive increase in defense while cutting billions from health care, housing and more.

"This budget represents 'America Last,'" Boyle said.

DEBT, DEFICITS AND TOUGH CHOICES AHEAD

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation's estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

It's the rest of the annual budget where much of the debate in Congress takes place, as Democrats over the years have insisted that changes in the level of spending for defense and non-defense need to be equitable.

The GOP's big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump's immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to push part of president's beefed up defense spending through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SAY THEY HAVE A DEAL TO END THE RECORD-LONG SHUTDOWN AT DHS

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would go in the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

CONGRESS STILL FIGHTING OVER 2026 SPENDING

The president's budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump's immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days.

Last year, in the president's first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

However, while Trump had sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending, Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, called Trump's new budget "morally bankrupt."

"Trump wants to build a ballroom," Murray said, referring to the White House renovation. "I want to build more affordable housing, and only one of us sits on the Appropriations Committee."

ATTACHMENT TWO – FROM COMMON DREAMS

‘A SYSTEM RIGGED’: UNTAXED WEALTH OF RICHEST 0.1% IS MORE THAN ASSETS OF WORLD’S POOREST HALF

A decade after the Panama Papers, the global rich are still hiding more than $2.8 trillion in tax havens. Just a fraction of that money could end extreme hunger and provide clean water to everyone on Earth.

Stephen Prager Apr 02, 2026

The richest 0.1% of people on Earth are hiding more than $2.8 trillion in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. That money alone is more wealth than is owned by the entire bottom half of humanity, more than 4.1 billion people.

These findings were published in a report released Thursday by Oxfam International on the 10th anniversary of the 2016 Panama Papers, which provided an unprecedented look at how the world’s most powerful capitalists, financiers, political leaders, celebrities, and criminals exploited offshore tax havens to stash their money.

“Ten years on, the superrich are still sequestering oceans of wealth in offshore vaults,” said Christian Hallum, Oxfam International’s tax lead.

The percentage of untaxed wealth in offshore accounts has dropped in the past 10 years, in large part due to global reforms like the adoption of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Automatic Exchange of Information framework (AEOI), which allows revenue authorities around the world to easily share information and crack down on cheats.

However, many nations in the Global South are excluded from this system, even though they need the tax revenue the most.

Oxfam found that a staggering $3.5 trillion, more than 3.2% of the global gross domestic product, still remains in untaxed accounts. That’s more than the entire GDP of France and is more than twice the combined wealth of the world’s 44 poorest nations.

And while the percentage of untaxed wealth is shrinking, that doesn’t mean inequality has shrunk.

On the contrary, the December 2025 “World Inequality Report” found that the richest 0.001% of humanity—fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires and billionaires—now have three times as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population combined.

Inequality has surged around the world in part due to taxation policies and pandemic recovery packages that overwhelmingly favor the rich. The most glaring was adopted in the world’s financial hub, the United States, last year.

The megabudget passed by Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump handed a $1 trillion tax cut to America’s wealthiest 1% while slashing more than $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, food assistance, and other safety net programs. It has been described by some economists as the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history.

While the global top 0.1% holds about 80% of untaxed offshore wealth, an even smaller group of uber-wealthy individuals does most of the cheating. The world’s richest 0.01%, who hold at least $50 million apiece, control about half of all money in global tax shelters—$1.7 trillion.

According to the Tax Justice Network’s Corporate Tax Haven Index, Caribbean islands under UK ownership, including the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda, are among the worst offenders. Other notable tax havens include Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

A February Oxfam report on Elon Musk, who is well on his way to becoming the world’s first trillionaire, found that his company, Tesla—which managed to pay zero dollars on its $2.3 billion income in 2024—has not published a country-by-country report on its taxes and that it has subsidiaries in many countries considered to be tax havens.

Big Pharma companies, including AbbVie and Merck, also used tax shelters to lower their total tax expense in 2025 by more than $1 billion, according to a report released earlier this month by the Financial Accountability & Corporate Transparency Coalition.

“This isn’t just about clever accounting—it’s about power and impunity,” Hallum said. “When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens, they place themselves above the obligations that bind the rest of society.”

“The consequences are as predictable as they are devastating,” he continued. “We see our public hospitals and schools starved of funds, our social fabric shredded by rising inequality, and ordinary people forced to shoulder the costs of a system rigged to enrich a tiny few.”

Even a fraction of the money currently stashed away by the world’s wealthiest could alleviate untold amounts of suffering.

In November, the United Nations’ World Food Program estimated that extreme hunger, which currently affects more than 318 million people around the world, could be eradicated by 2030 with investments of about $93 billion per year, but that global hunger programs instead remain “slow, fragmented, and underfunded.”

According to a 2021 UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report, investments of around $114 billion per year would similarly be enough to ensure that everyone on Earth has access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

Oxfam called on governments around the world to increase coordination to prevent the wealthy from hiding their riches from tax authorities. It also urged them to adopt more aggressive policies to tax the 1%'s wealth at home, including taxes on income and on extreme wealth.

ATTACHMENT THREE – FROM JACOBIN

CHOOSE CLASS WAR, NOT BOOMER RESENTMENT

By Josh Mound

The generational warfare promoted by centrists and the Right, who have long been desperate to cut and privatize Social Security, is a fool’s solution to what ails the system. Taxing the rich is the answer.

“Total boomer luxury communism” is the Right’s latest attempt to convince younger Americans to slash their own future benefits under the guise of sticking it to older generations

A specter is haunting the United States — the specter of “total boomer luxury communism.” Or at least that’s what conservative pundits want younger generations to think.

Conservative writer Russ Greene coined the term “Total Boomer Luxury Communism” (TBLC) in July 2025 as a cynical riff on the utopian left’s vision of a post-scarcity “fully automated luxury communism.” Greene elaborated on the TBLC idea in a December essay in the American Mind, one of the house organs of the Claremont Institute.

Founded in 1979 as a quixotic fusion of Barry Goldwater’s free-market fundamentalism and Leo Strauss’s conservatism, Claremont has become one of the most influential institutional champions of Trumpian “national conservatism.” When parts of the Right questioned Donald Trump’s conservative bona fides in 2016, the institute published Michael Anton’s viral essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” which urged conservatives to “charge the cockpit” — that is, vote for Trump — or “die.”

In return, Trump stocked his administration with Claremont alumni — the self-styled “Claremonsters” — across both terms. The institute’s largest donor, hedge fund manager Thomas Klingenstein, believes that conservatism is locked in a “cold civil war” against “woke communism” and “social justice.” As Vice President J. D. Vance recently quipped, Claremont is “the only group maybe in California that makes me seem like a reasonable moderate.”

Greene is CrossFit’s former director of government relations and the current head of the Prime Mover Institute, an energy-industry group that has called for repealing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Carbon Pollution Standards.

“The essence of TBLC,” Greene writes, “is that it redistributes wealth from younger families and workers to seniors, who are on average much richer.” The result, he argues, is a cohort of retirees living in a “Marxist paradise of hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, rearing cattle in the evening, and criticizing after dinner.”

This “generational injustice,” Greene claims, is “driving every aspect of American decline — from skyrocketing national debt and the erosion of the defense industrial base to the despair of young people.” His remedy is to “radically overhaul America’s entitlement regime” by cutting Social Security and Medicare, even if it forces recipients — whom he calls “welfare queens” — back into the workforce or compels them to sell their homes.

Greene’s TBLC framework has been endorsed and amplified by figures affiliated with a range of billionaire-backed think tanks — including the conservative Capital Research Center, the neoliberal Institute for Progress, and the right-libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation — as well as by centrist blogger Matt Yglesias, white supremacist Jordan Lasker, and conservative columnist George Will.

Taken at face value, the timing of the TBLC discourse might seem strange. After all, the oldest boomers are turning eighty years old this year, and millennials are now the largest generation. That’s because the real motivation behind the emergence of the TBLC argument is the looming exhaustion of the Social Security trust fund in 2032, which will provide opponents of the old-age safety net with their best opportunity in decades to cut it.

“Total boomer luxury communism” is the Right’s latest attempt to convince younger Americans to slash their own future benefits under the guise of sticking it to older generations.

It’s manufactured generational warfare dressed up as legitimate class conflict, meant to distract from the cross-generational economic inequality — and the policies that have fueled it — at the root of younger Americans’ economic anxieties.

A LENINIST STRATEGY FOR PRIVATIZATION

From its inception as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, Social Security has faced conservative opposition. Business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the Du Pont–backed American Liberty League lobbied aggressively against government-provided old-age pensions. Testifying before Congress, NAM’s Noel Sargent argued that Social Security would “increase dependency and indigency” while eroding the “individual energy and efficiency” of the elderly to “take care of themselves.”

Republican James W. Wadsworth Jr struck a more apocalyptic tone, warning that Social Security “opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and so pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.”

Medicare received a similar reception from the Right when enacted under Lyndon Johnson. Barry Goldwater, Johnson’s Republican challenger in 1964, made a proto-TBLC case against Medicare, quipping, “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink?”

Most famously, Ronald Reagan committed his opposition to Medicare to vinyl. He predicted that if Medicare became law, “you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Throughout the 1960s and ’70s, Reagan talked up Social Security privatization, only to distance himself from the idea during his 1980 presidential campaign. Once in office, however, he proposed a roughly 10 percent reduction in future Social Security outlays. The Reagan era ultimately produced the Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which raised the full-benefit retirement age from sixty-five to sixty-seven, among other changes.

The Right’s failure to impose deeper cuts on the old-age safety net during the Reagan era led the Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis to call for what they bluntly described as a “Leninist strategy” to privatize Social Security. The obstacle, they conceded, was simple: the public liked the program. Conservatives, therefore, needed to be “ready for the next crisis in Social Security,” which “may be further away than many people believe.”

Preparing to exploit that crisis moment, they wrote, would require mobilizing “the banks, insurance companies, and other institutions that will gain” from privatization while waging “guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.”

Foreshadowing TBLC and other generation-based privatization appeals, Butler and Germanis argued that “the young are the most obvious constituency for reform and a natural ally for the private alternative,” provided they could be convinced through a “comprehensive program of economic education” that “the prospects for a reasonable return on one’s ‘contribution’ [will] continue to fade.”

BOOMERS AS VICTIMS (I)

In the decades that followed, a seemingly endless series of “deficit hawk” organizations — including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Americans for Generational Equity, the Concord Coalition, Lead… or Leave, Third Millennium, The Can Kicks Back, and Fix the Debt — worked to convince younger Americans of the need for radical cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Each was backed by pro-privatization investment banker Peter G. Peterson, along with a predictable coalition drawn from business, finance, and conservative think tanks.

Drawing on the dubious writings of William Strauss and Neil Howe, these organizations understood that framing economic issues generationally — rather than in terms of class or other categories — was crucial to their success. As Republican Senator David Durenberger, chair of Americans for Generational Equity (AGE), put it, “The more America’s leaders talk about and think in terms of generational equity, the more effective AGE will be in its education program, and the better chance we will have of making the difference on crucial legislative issues.”

While the generations in question changed, the message these organizations delivered to the youth of the day remained the same: retirees are greedy, Social Security and Medicare won’t be there for you, and it’s time to cut and privatize.

Strauss and Howe’s early work cast baby boomers as the victims of the Silent Generation’s profligacy, and early pro-privatization groups claimed to speak on their behalf. As AGE’s Phillip Longman wrote in the New York Times, “The Baby Boomers as a whole are far from ‘upwardly mobile’. . . .  A declining proportion of younger Americans own their own homes, and those who do are typically encumbered by unprecedented mortgage payments.” The problem, according to Longman, was that “Baby Boomers are paying an unprecedented share of their income to support the current older generation.”

With the backing of Peterson, Exxon, and General Motors, among other corporate heavy-hitters, AGE garnered widespread media coverage throughout the 1980s. In the 1988 presidential primaries, AGE endorsed the two candidates — former Republican governor Pete du Pont and televangelist Pat Robertson — willing to call for the privatization of Social Security. But only a few years later, AGE collapsed after investigations into Durenberger’s use of the organization to boost his own reelection campaign.

AGE wasn’t alone in marshaling empathy for the boomers for conservative ends.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a corporate-funded “New Democrat” organization, invoked “the question of equity among generations” as it lobbied for both cuts to and partial privatization of Social Security. The DLC argued that “millions of retirees, without regard to their need, reap windfalls from Social Security beyond the interest-adjusted value of their tax contributions into the system” at the expense of “millions of baby boomers” who “have paid steep payroll taxes for two decades and are struggling with their parents’ retirement needs even as they worry about their own.”

But despite being saddled with Reagan’s cuts to Social Security, boomers resisted entreaties to turn against the program. So opponents of Social Security and Medicare shifted course, pinning their hopes on Generation X.

BOOMERS AS VILLAINS (II)

As the 1990s began, Strauss and Howe updated their generational theory for a younger audience. In 13th Gen, they now argued that boomers and previous generations had “push[ed] every policy lever conceivable — tax codes, entitlements, public debt, unfunded liabilities, labor laws, hiring practices — to tilt the economic playing field away from the young and towards the old.”

13th Gen reinforced this narrative with a series of heavy-handed political cartoons: a tidal wave of national debt looming over twentysomethings (“HONEY, I SOAKED THE KIDS”); lunching boomers debating the purchase of a “second Beemer” while complaining about the Gen X waitstaff; and an elderly couple tossing the keys to a Cadillac — license plate “I-URND-IT” — to a teenage country-club valet without dropping a dime into his “COLLEGE FUND” tip jar.

A new target generation meant new organizations, too. With backing from Peterson and Ross Perot, recent college grads Rob Nelson and Jon Cowan founded Lead… or Leave (LOL!) in 1992. LOL billed itself as “the largest grassroots college/twentysomething organization in the country.” In their manifesto, Revolution X, Nelson and Cowan called for cutting Social Security benefits for current retirees and transitioning future generations to mandatory private accounts.

Though Nelson and Cowan appeared on ABC’s Nightline, CBS This Morning, and CNN, and were profiled by dozens of print outlets, LOL proved to be a house of cards. Its vaunted membership numbers counted every student at any college where it had a single member. Though it managed to wrangle five hundred people for a “Dis the Deficit” protest on capitol hill, LOL’s other high-profile plans — including a promised “Rock the Debt” concert and 1996 election protests at which Gen Xers would burn their Social Security cards — never materialized. LOL soon folded.

LOL was succeeded by Third Millennium (TM). With funding from Peterson, the Prudential Foundation, Merrill Lynch, and several business groups, Third Millennium marketed itself as a “post-partisan” Gen X version of Students for a Democratic Society, complete with a self-important “Third Millennium Declaration” that labeled Social Security “a generational scam — fiscally unsound and generationally inequitable.”

Like AGE and LOL, the media and sympathetic politicians lavished attention on TM. Its leaders — including Meredith Bagby, Richard Thau, and Maya MacGuineas — appeared on NBC’s The Today Show and CBS This Morning and testified before Congress. Warning of “generational warfare,” TM called for the privatization of Social Security. It organized a “Call Your Grandma” campaign urging young people to persuade their grandparents to oppose the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare and instead support “comprehensive Medicare reform that relies on a public-private partnership of competition and choice.”

TM also bought ads on MTV as part of the “Coalition for Change.” One commercial featured a young woman lamenting, “At this rate, I’ll be spending my whole life paying off the bills run up by our parents and grandparents. Without change, programs like Medicare won’t have any money left by the time I retire.”

TM’s most successful stunt was hiring Republican pollster Frank Luntz to gauge young people’s attitudes toward Social Security. Rather than field a traditional survey, TM’s board pushed for the inclusion of an unrelated question about UFOs — a setup that allowed them to disingenuously pit young people’s confidence in Social Security against their belief in life from outer space.

In an era when major publications dubbed Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” referred to seniors as “greedy geezers,” and gave Peterson cover space to argue for replacing Social Security with “mandatory” private savings, the press eagerly amplified the resulting talking point. It appeared in some five hundred news stories and reached the White House. In a 1998 speech at the University of Illinois, President Bill Clinton quipped “that young people in their twenties think it’s more likely that they will see UFOs than that they will ever collect Social Security.”

Despite the efforts of Wall Street and groups like LOL and TM, the Clinton-era push to cut or privatize Social Security ran headlong into political reality.

“If we had done nothing else, that was our signal achievement,” TM’s Thau recalled to journalist Eric Laursen, “perhaps more important to the culture and the Social Security discussion than anything else we did.” In fact, the talking point hinged on a misleading juxtaposition of two unrelated questions. When asked directly whether UFOs were more likely than collecting Social Security, young Americans chose Social Security by a two-to-one margin.

Despite the efforts of Wall Street and groups like LOL and TM, the Clinton-era push to cut or privatize Social Security ran headlong into political reality.

In 1995, Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey and Republican Senator Alan Simpson proposed raising the retirement age to seventy and partially privatizing Social Security. The plan made waves in the press — Kerrey even cited TM’s UFO poll in defending it — but it went nowhere in Congress.

Following Clinton’s reelection in 1996, the DLC pushed him to pursue a “fundamental restructuring” of Social Security and Medicare by bringing both “into marketplace.” Will Marshall, the president of the DLC-affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), called for a “grand bargain” based around “personal accounts [that] would refashion Social Security from a system of wealth transfer into one that also promotes individual wealth creation and broader ownership.”

In late 1997, Clinton met secretly with House GOP leader Newt Gingrich and Ways and Means chair Bill Archer to hammer out a plan to partially privatize Social Security and Medicare. “I’m prepared to take the political heat to provide political cover for the Republicans,” Clinton assured Archer. For Social Security, the outlines of the deal included a hike in the retirement age and the diversion of a portion of payroll tax dollars into private accounts. Fortunately, the revelation of Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky derailed the talks.

As the scandal exploded, Clinton picked up a proposal made by former Social Security Administration (SSA) commissioner Robert Ball and other members of the mid-’90s Advisory Council on Social Security for the government, rather than individuals, to invest payroll taxes in higher-yield equity index funds. The Advisory Council argued it would be “possible to maintain Social Security benefits for all income groups of workers, greatly improving the money’s worth for younger workers, without incurring the risks that could accompany individual investment.”

An independent federal fund could offer low administrative costs and socialized risk — in sharp contrast to individual private accounts, whose fees would vastly outstrip Social Security’s minuscule administrative costs and whose holders would face the danger of seeing their savings wiped out by a market downturn just as they were about to retire.

Clinton proposed investing approximately 15 percent of Social Security’s surplus into index funds. Experts like Robert Reischauer, Alan Blinder, Robert Greenstein, and Henry Aaron endorsed the plan. As Aaron told the Senate Budget Committee in 1999, “Because administrative costs would be smaller, investment of part of the trust funds in equities would yield higher returns than individual accounts, while protecting beneficiaries from the risks they would bear under a system of individual accounts.”

Clinton also proposed Universal Savings Accounts, a supplementary program outside of Social Security that would automatically deposit $300 per year into retirement accounts for lower- and middle-income workers, with the government matching additional contributions.

Some progressive Democrats were understandably skeptical of the plan, and the public’s reaction was lukewarm, at best. But Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, congressional Republicans, and other conservatives ultimately sank it. They saw the federal fund as socialistic and the external individual accounts as insufficient. For the Right, individual private accounts within Social Security were the only acceptable solution.

The Right’s best shot at privatization came during President George W. Bush’s administration. Bush spent the “political capital” he claimed to have earned from his narrow reelection in 2004 on a plan to partially privatize Social Security, which he claimed would be “a better deal for younger workers” who’d been “stuck with an enormous tab” by baby boomers like him.

Bush’s plan was boosted not merely by conservative think tanks like Cato — whose Michael Tanner told Congress that “more privatization is better than less” because “you don’t cut out half a cancer” — but also by the Peterson-backed Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) led by former TM board member MacGuineas.

The problem was that, as one account noted, “the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined,” and Bush ultimately dropped the plan.

Pro-privatization forces were more successful with Medicare. The 1997 budget bill passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by President Clinton included Medicare+Choice, which opened Medicare to private plans. Medicare+Choice was expanded and renamed Medicare Advantage as part of the Bush-era legislation that created Medicare’s prescription drug coverage.

MANUFACTURING MILLENNIAL OUTRAGE

Though the cost of the Bush tax cuts far exceeded the long-run Social Security shortfall, and Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared that “deficits don’t matter,” Republicans predictably rediscovered their fiscal hawkery once Democrat Barack Obama entered the White House.

Taking that concern at face value, Obama foolishly pivoted to deficit reduction in 2010, even as the economy was still reeling from the Great Recession, and appointed the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform —  better known as the Simpson-Bowles commission, after its two chairs, the aforementioned Alan Simpson and President Clinton’s former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles.

From the outset, the Simpson-Bowles commission tilted toward a conservative vision of deficit reduction. It proposed cutting top corporate and individual income tax rates even as it called for cuts to Social Security, including raising the retirement age to sixty-nine and shifting to a slower cost-of-living adjustment that understates the inflation faced by retirees. The result was a roughly 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to new revenue.

At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan rolled out a series of Republican budget blueprints that would have sharply reduced taxes on corporations and high earners by cutting individual rates, scrapping the corporate income tax in favor of a border-adjusted consumption tax, and eliminating taxes on investment income and estates. Ryan paired those tax cuts with proposals to privatize Medicare and shift Social Security toward individual accounts.

This Obama-era push for cuts to Medicare and Social Security brought with it a new wave of Peterson-backed groups, along with yet another downward shift in the target generation.

This Obama-era push for cuts to Medicare and Social Security brought with it a new wave of Peterson-backed groups, along with yet another downward shift in the target generation.

The most prominent of the new Peterson-backed groups, Fix the Debt (FTD), enlisted Simpson and Bowles as its cochairs. CRFB functioned as its de facto parent organization, and its president, MacGuineas, also headed FTD. While Bowles — by then a Morgan Stanley board member — lent the effort a bipartisan veneer, the eighty-six CEOs on its Fiscal Leadership Council were overwhelmingly Republican donors.

FTD’s public relations blitz stumbled early when one of its CEO backers, Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein, told CBS in November 2012, “You’re going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people’s expectations [about] entitlements and what people think that they’re going to get, because it’s not going to happen. They’re not going to get it.” The remark triggered a wave of reporting on the outsize compensation and retirement packages enjoyed by Blankfein and other executives backing FTD, as well as their behind-the-scenes lobbying to shield their own tax preferences from any deficit deal.

Shifting onto firmer ground, FTD began airing commercials in December that leaned heavily on the idea that the national debt represented an albatross around the necks of younger generations. In one, a teacher laments, “I would love for everything to start getting resolved now so that I can tell my children and the children that I teach and not be lying to them when I say to them that there is a bright future and you can do anything that you want to do.”

FTD also launched a youth affiliate, The Can Kicks Back (TCKB), to gin up generational outrage. Billed as a “millennial-driven campaign to solve America’s fiscal crisis,” TCKB’s stated goal was to “organize over 100,000 young people” to demand “fiscal sustainability and generational equity.” Although TCKB’s staff consisted largely of people in their twenties and thirties, its advisory board included both Simpson and Bowles as well as LOL’s Cowan, who was now serving as the president of Third Way, a centrist Democrat think tank with deep Wall Street ties.

Sandwiched between Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders’s youth–powered 2016 campaign, TCKB pressed generational conflict as a substitute for class politics more forcefully than any of its predecessors. Through its “Swindled” project, TCKB warned of an “economic crisis” caused by “inequality beyond anything we’ve ever seen before.” This was “not the gap between the rich and the poor,” according to TCKB. Instead, it was “the one between the young and the old,” which was “threatening for the first time in our history to leave one generation worse off than their parents and grandparents.”

TCKB’s policy prescriptions were predictable. It called for a “grand generational bargain” built around “reforming the tax code” and “slowing the growth of entitlement spending.” Unsurprisingly, given its advisory board, it endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan. TCKB heaped praise on Paul Ryan’s budget, ranking it first in its March Madness–style “Budget Madness” bracket and applauding Ryan’s “courage and leadership on budget issues.” It also proposed the Intergenerational Financial Obligations Reform (INFORM) Act, which sought to codify inherently inaccurate and misleading “generational accounting” as an alternative to the federal government’s traditional income-based distributional analyses.

In addition to TCKB, Peterson poured nearly half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 into a range of initiatives aimed at convincing Americans — especially younger ones — of the need to cut or privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Partnering with MTV’s campus network, mtvU, he launched the Indebted campaign, whose website featured a “Debt Ski” video game and deficit-themed pop-up videos for songs by artists like Kanye West, Lily Allen, and Fall Out Boy. Like TCKB, Indebted warned that government deficits were dooming young people “to be the first generation that won’t enjoy the same growth in standard of living as their parents.”

Reaching for an even younger audience, Peterson also funded an “Understanding Fiscal Responsibility” curriculum through Columbia University’s Teachers College. Six of its fifteen lessons focused on Social Security and Medicare, while just one zeroed in on taxation. It was distributed for free to high schools nationwide.

Few of Peterson’s efforts had the desired effect.

Raising taxes on the rich is the ‘easy way’ to fix Social Security. These organizations and their wealthy donors just don’t want it to happen.

Like LOL and TM, TCKB sought to project the image of a mass movement. It brought its “AmeriCAN” mascot — literally “a giant can character” meant to “represent the young Americans who are kicking back to reclaim their future” — on a “Generational Equity Tour” of college campuses, where organizers hoped to launch local chapters and dramatize millennial concern about the “growing economic inequality between younger and older Americans as a result of current fiscal policy” by collecting aluminum cans from students.

The tour did not go as planned.

TCKB was exposed for planting identical, ghostwritten op-eds in college newspapers nationwide. Critical editorials in the Georgetown and University of Virginia student papers accusing TCKB of being an “astroturfed” campaign “misrepresenting” itself to students. A leaked internal email revealed TCKB staffers lamenting, “We generated 800 cans through our national tour at a cost of about $3,000 per can.”

TCKB’s only genuinely viral moment came when it persuaded the eighty-one-year-old Simpson to dance “Gangnam Style” in a video alongside “AmeriCAN.” But the video gained attention more for its absurdity — with Simpson telling the press that he “made a perfect ass” out of himself — than for its message, perhaps because it consisted of Simpson scolding youth to “stop Instagramming your breakfast and tweeting your first world problems” and instead “start using those precious social media skills to go out and sign people up on this baby,” otherwise “these old coots will clean out the Treasury before you get there.”

By early 2014, TCKB’s funding had dried up, and one member of its dwindling staff privately conceded that “Fix the Debt is increasingly seen (I think in a lot of ways justifiably) as a mouthpiece for corporate America, and particularly Wall Street.”

The Obama-era push for a deficit deal collapsed as well. Despite proposals calling for anywhere from a 2:1 to a 6:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases, Republicans balked at any tax hikes, while pressure from progressives such as Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pushed Obama to retreat from cutting Social Security.

PHONY GENERATIONAL WAR

With the TBLC discourse, Greene and like-minded conservatives appear to view the Social Security trust fund’s projected depletion as the “next crisis” foretold by Butler and Germanis — a moment to force through cuts or privatization that had previously proved politically toxic, despite the efforts of AGE, LOL, TM, TCKB, and the veritable alphabet soup of other groups.

Indeed, Greene’s playbook reads like a modernized version of Butler and Germanis’s “Leninist strategy.” As Greene has written:

To terminate TBLC we need to:

1. Raise awareness of mass generational injustice.

2. Align Wall Street, the defense industrial complex, corporate America, and the media against TBLC (the alternative is tax hikes, cuts to discretionary spending and a debt crisis).

3. Form a counter-AARP.

Greene sees the growing number of articles “aligned“ with his TBLC framework as proof that the strategy is working. While its ultimate success remains to be seen, there’s no doubt that an effort to paint boomers as the new “greedy geezers” is gaining traction.

The key to the TBLC narrative is the idea that, as Greene has put it, baby boomers are “the wealthiest, most privileged generation in America,” consisting of “retired millionaires [with] country club lifestyles.” Yet this impression rests on misleading data that simultaneously exaggerates the wealth and understates the needs of the average boomer, while ignoring the deeper inequalities within and across generations that point toward income-based redistribution rather than generational demagoguery.

Most articles that emphasize baby boomers’ wealth rely on measures of mean wealth by generation or each generation’s share of total wealth. Because these measures ignore inequality within generations, they can be misleading. If Jeff Bezos, a baby boomer, were to transfer his wealth to Mark Zuckerberg, a millennial, both metrics would suddenly make boomers appear poorer and millennials richer — even though nothing about the actual economic circumstances of either generation would have changed.

Looking at wealth by percentile using the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) provides a much more realistic picture of each age group’s net worth.

Older households are wealthier. That’s no surprise, given that they’ve had longer to save.

But wealth inequality within age groups swamps wealth inequality between them. The median household aged sixty-five to seventy-four has three times the wealth of the median household aged thirty-five to forty-four. But the 99th percentile of households aged thirty-five to forty-four has fifty times the wealth of that group’s median, and the top 1 percent of households aged thirty-five to forty-four average 134 times the median.

The 99th percentile of households aged sixty-five to seventy-four holds forty-seven times their age group’s median, while the top 1 percent averages 147 times the median. The lack of wealth at the bottom is just as consistent. The 25th percentile never exceeds half the overall median in any age group.

Making matters more complicated: even though older households are wealthier, on average, for most households over sixty-five, that wealth isn’t liquid. Instead, it’s equity in their primary residence.

Nearly 60 percent of the roughly $375,000 in wealth held by the middle wealth quintile of over-sixty-five households is composed of home equity. For the bottom 60 percent of elderly households, the primary residence accounts for most of their net worth. It’s only within the top fifth of households over sixty-five that a significant portion of wealth comes from something other than their primary residence.

Non-white older households are especially likely to have their wealth tied up in their home they occupy. Moreover, the percentage of homeowners over sixty-five with a mortgage has nearly doubled, from 21 percent to 39 percent, since 1989.

Things look even worse for older households when it comes to income. SCF data is pre-tax, but includes wage income, pensions, Social Security, and other cash transfers.

Households over seventy-five have the lowest household income of approximately $50,000. The sixty-five to seventy-four and under thirty-five age groups are next, both making about $60,000 per year. Individual, rather than household, income data from the census shows the same pattern.

Americans sixty-five and older have the lowest income — approximately $35,000, including Social Security — of any age group besides those between fifteen and twenty-five. This isn’t surprising, given that both age groups largely consist of people who are too young or too old to work. Transferring money from working-age adults to kids and the elderly is one of the main functions of all welfare states.

It’s also worth considering that the elderly — like lower-income people more broadly — face higher inflation rates. The “Elder Index,” published by the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston, is a county-level estimate of the income older adults need to meet basic living expenses without relying on family support or means-tested public assistance.

Nationally, for a couple in good health, the index estimates annual costs of roughly $38,000 for homeowners without a mortgage, $47,000 for renters, and $52,000 for homeowners with a mortgage. Depending on the data source, between 25 and 45 percent of older households fall below those thresholds. As a result, about a third of midlife adults provide financial support to their parents, underscoring the reality that younger generations’ financial security is imperiled by older generations’ lack thereof.

Even if most elderly households aren’t rich now, that doesn’t settle the question of whether Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z are worse off than boomers were at similar ages. But historical SCF data allows for those comparisons.

While baby boomers fared better than the Silent Generation, younger generations have all done just as well as — or even better than — boomers. Younger households fare even better relative to boomers when including taxes and adjusting for falling household sizes.

There’s good reason not to be Pollyannaish about the economic fortunes of younger generations, however. While the SCF suggests that the median millennial household is wealthier than its boomer counterpart at the same age, studies using other surveys find that poor and middle-class millennials are worse off, while wealthy millennials are much better off, than comparable boomers.

Because these surveys are older than the SCF — and millennials have experienced the strongest wealth growth in recent years — they may paint an overly pessimistic picture of the median millennial today. Nonetheless, they underscore the importance of the within-generation inequality ignored by the TBLC discourse’s cross-generational focus. Indeed, by some measures, millennials are the most unequal generation in US history.

There’s also evidence that millennials are less likely to experience absolute upward mobility — that is, earn more than their parents in real terms — than any generation in modern US history. Moreover, home ownership rates for both millennials and Zoomers lag behind previous generations’ rates at similar ages, regardless of education level or income, thanks to the twin albatrosses of rising housing prices and student loan debt.

Ultimately, there’s little evidence to support the TBLC claim that boomer retirees are living in a “Marxist paradise.” More importantly, the worse off one believes Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z are compared to boomers, the more intergenerationally unjust the cuts to Social Security proposed by conservatives are.

CONSERVATIVES’ GENERATIONAL MYTHS

As with earlier attempts to persuade younger generations to support cuts to old-age benefits, proponents of the TBLC narrative hope to create the impression that cutting Social Security would allow younger Americans to stick it to supposedly “greedy geezers.”

Last month, conservative Washington Post columnist Ramesh Ponnuru declared, “Don’t Save Social Security.” Echoing the TBLC discourse, Ponnuru argued that the program simply funnels money to already-well-off retirees — citing the common conservative talking point that a rich retired couple could receive $100,000 in benefits each year.

He also contended that Social Security is too generous to middle-income retirees, since “a middle-class worker who retires in the next decade will, on average, receive 47 percent more than the sum of what the person paid in taxes and the interest on that money,” while simultaneously being too stingy to poor ones, given that “even though Social Security paid out $1.6 trillion last year, around 6 percent of seniors still live in poverty.” His solution? Raise the retirement age and replace the current benefit formula with a flat payment of roughly $1,350 per month.

In mid-March, MacGuineas appeared before Republican Ron Johnson’s Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth. In her testimony, she claimed that “seniors are the richest” Americans, decried the “generational imbalance” of current spending, and warned of “generational resentment.”

Having previously coauthored a plan to cut and partially privatize Social Security, she called for “reforms” to old-age programs and proposed creating another Simpson-Bowles-style fiscal commission to enact them. Following her testimony, Johnson — who has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and proposed privatizing it — posted a video of her remarks on social media, writing, “It is immoral what we are doing to our children and grandchildren.”

Critics portray Social Security as too generous to well-off retirees and too stingy to poor ones, while also being a great deal for boomers and a terrible deal for younger generations; neither claim holds up to scrutiny.

Critics thus portray Social Security as a system that is too generous to well-off retirees and too stingy to poor ones, while also being a great deal for boomers and a terrible deal for younger generations. Neither claim holds up to scrutiny.

Social Security is a progressive system designed to provide proportionally higher benefits to workers with lower earnings. Benefits are calculated using a formula that replaces 90 percent of the first $1,024 of a worker’s average monthly earnings, 32 percent of earnings between $1,024 and $6,172, and 15 percent above that level. As a result, lower-income workers receive benefits that replace a larger share of their preretirement income than higher earners.

Despite conservatives’ frequent invocation of couples collecting $100,000 per year in Social Security benefits, most retirees receive far more modest payments. The mean monthly retirement benefit is about $1,975, while the median is roughly $1,195. Just 13 percent of retirees receive more than $3,000 per month, and fewer than 3 percent receive over $4,000.

Among households over sixty-five, the middle quintile receives about $2,400 per month in Social Security benefits. For the bottom 80 percent of households, moreover, Social Security provides a substantial share of total income — a crucial consideration when evaluating any changes to benefits.

How many households actually receive $100,000 or more per year in Social Security benefits? Just two-tenths of 1 percent, according to Current Population Survey data. In fact, only about 5 percent of households receive $60,000 or more. That’s why proposals to establish an inflation-adjusted $100,000 benefit cap don’t save much in the short run but generate growing long-term savings by eroding the share of preretirement wages replaced by Social Security for both the rich and upper-middle class workers, since wages grow faster than inflation.

Contrary to the idea that Social Security is short-changing younger generations, the system is structured to be more generous to Americans born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s — roughly Gen X and millennials — provided that benefits aren’t cut before they reach retirement age.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes projections for Social Security that include lifetime benefits and lifetime taxes for each decade’s birth cohort and earnings quintiles. The projections include two scenarios: benefits scheduled under current law and benefits payable if Congress takes no action and lets across-the-board cuts take effect upon trust fund depletion.

The benefit-to-tax ratio shows whether each cohort and income group will receive more in lifetime benefits than it contributes in lifetime taxes, with both valued in 2025 dollars discounted to age sixty-five at the average interest rate on federal debt.

With the partial exception of the highest quintile, the three younger cohorts’ benefit-to-tax ratio exceeds the ratios for those born in the 1950s and 1960s, unless benefits are cut.

In other words, cuts to Social Security — not Social Security’s benefit structure itself — would make conservatives’ generational criticism of Social Security true. Other estimates of Social Security’s benefit-to-tax ratio by birth cohort reach the same conclusion.

The CBO’s benefit-to-tax ratio is also the source for claims like Ponnuru’s that workers receive “more than the sum of what the person paid in taxes and the interest on that money.”

Cuts to Social Security would make conservatives’ generational criticism of Social Security true.

Yet this raises an obvious question: If Social Security returns more than workers contribute, how can conservatives simultaneously claim that the program is a “very bad deal” and that, as President George W. Bush put it during his privatization push, workers’ “money will grow, over time, [in private accounts] at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver”?

The CBO figures assume a real rate of return below 1 percent — specifically, the average interest rate on outstanding federal debt. This is the rate at which the federal government itself borrows money. It is not the rate that the Social Security trust fund earns on its reserves, which is roughly 2.6 percent.

It’s also not the effective rate of return that retirees of various income levels get on their payroll taxes. The Social Security Administration (SSA) does publish those internal real rates of return for workers of various income levels and birth years, though.

The SSA’s data shows that — even before considering market volatility and other downsides — it would be hard for private accounts to exceed Social Security’s returns for lower- and middle-income workers. That’s why studies that account for risk, fees, and transition costs find that privatization wouldn’t deliver better returns for most workers — particularly lower- and middle-income earners.

So the ultimate question is: How do we prevent the across-the-board cuts to Social Security that would, in fact, make it a worse deal for younger generations than older ones?

The answer reveals the central bait and switch of both the TBLC narrative and the entire “generational equity” framework. The only scenarios in which Social Security becomes a worse deal for younger generations are the ones TBLC proponents support, while the proposals that would ensure Gen Xers, millennials, and Zoomers are treated as well as —  or better than — boomers are the ones they oppose.

CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY (FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS)

Beyond outright privatization, conservatives’ preferred solution to Social Security’s seventy-five-year shortfall is to cut benefits. Specifically, conservatives have put forward numerous proposals to transform Social Security into a flat benefit, ranging from Andrew Biggs’s $1,025 per month to Ponnuru’s $1,350 to Greene’s $1,250. Biggs, a staffer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has also endorsed proposals that would set monthly benefits at either 125 percent (about $1,660 per month) or 150 percent (about $2,000 per month) of the federal poverty level. Alternatively, he’s proposed retaining earnings-based benefits while imposing a roughly $3,500 per month cap.

With the exception of the $3,500 cap, all of these proposals would impose drastic benefit cuts on future retirees. Right now, nearly 90 percent of retired workers receive more than $1,025 per month, 80 percent more than $1,250, 75 percent more than $1,350, 60 percent more than $1,660, and half receive more than $2,000.

Most of Social Security’s critics would prefer that the program didn’t exist. That their reform proposals result in a system that’s a terrible deal for younger generations is a feature, not a bug.

While flat benefits would boost benefits for those at the bottom, their value would erode over time. Currently, initial Social Security benefits are indexed to wage growth — something that conservatives have often criticized. Only the $1,025 per month proposal maintains that. The others that specify adjustments tie initial benefits to inflation. That means that flat benefit proposals level up fewer and fewer low-income retirees as each generation passes, since inflation tends to grow more slowly than wages. The $2,000 per month flat benefit would boost payments for approximately the bottom 40 percent of the 1970s cohort but only the bottom 20 percent of the 1990s cohort.

In fact, the vast majority of workers in the post-1960s cohorts would actually be better off with the automatic across-the-board cuts than with the lower flat benefit proposals. Even with the most generous flat benefit of $2,000 per month, 60 percent of the 1990s cohort would be better off with the across-the-board cut.

Previous Republican plans don’t fare better in terms of progressivity or “generational equity.” Paul Ryan’s aforementioned “Roadmap for America’s Future” proposed a variety of changes to Social Security. Ryan’s plan would’ve partially indexed initial benefits to inflation rather than wage growth, raised the retirement age for younger workers, and indexed yearly benefit growth to a version of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that grows more slowly — despite the fact, as noted above, that elderly people tend to face higher rates of inflation. This would all come on top of partially privatizing the program.

The combined effects of the three benefit changes would’ve cut benefits by age seventy-five for retirees born in 1985 by 11 percent for a low earner (approximately $19,000 in 2010 dollars), 26 percent for a medium earner ($43,000), and 33 percent for a high earner (high earner ($69,000). Ryan’s cuts would be deeper for younger cohorts, growing by roughly 4 to 8 percentage points per decade depending on earnings level.

Nor did the private accounts rescue the plan. The CBO modeled the private accounts against the payable, rather than scheduled benefits, baseline; that is, it assumed that benefit cuts would take place upon the trust fund’s depletion. Even then, it projected that most younger generations would be no better off under Ryan’s plan than under the automatic cuts themselves — and worse off compared to what they’d been promised under scheduled benefits.

The Simpson-Bowles proposals changed Social Security’s benefit formula, raised the retirement age, introduced a new minimum benefit, and switched to the same slower-growing CPI used in Ryan’s plan, along with slightly increasing the payroll tax cap.

The commission’s plan went through several revisions, but the final version analyzed by the SSA would have raised benefits at age seventy-five for approximately 30 percent of low-income retirees born in 1985, while cutting benefits for everyone else. A medium earner would’ve seen a cut of 15 percent, a high earner 30 percent.

The cuts deepened both with income and each succeeding generation. Benefits for all workers would converge to a narrow range between $850 and $1,250 per month. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, “In the long run, most workers would end up getting very similar benefits, despite having paid very different amounts in payroll taxes.”

In 2016, Republican Sam Johnson, the chair of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, put out a proposal with many of the same changes as Simpson-Bowles, except that it eliminated cost-of-living adjustments for higher-income retirees and eschewed any tax increases. For those born in 1985, a new minimum benefit would have slightly boosted benefits for roughly 25 percent of low-wage workers but imposed cuts on most — between 17 and 28 percent for a medium earner (approximately $50,000 in 2016 dollars) and 33 percent for a high earner ($80,000). It also proposed raising the full retirement age to sixty-nine by 2030.

Raising the retirement age is, in fact, central to virtually every conservative or centrist Social Security proposal, even though increases in longevity have been concentrated among upper-income Americans. As one study summarized, today “the richest American men live fifteen years longer than the poorest men, while the richest American women live ten years longer than the poorest women.”

In other words, raising the retirement age would concentrate its costs on poor and working-class members of younger generations — the very group that proponents of “generational equity” claim to care about most. It is, in effect, a benefit cut engineered to fall hardest on the millennials stocking shelves and driving trucks, and lightest on those managing hedge funds.

All the same, these proposals were touted by conservative think tanks and Peterson-backed groups focused on deficit reduction and generational accounting. The CRFB, for example, praised Ryan’s “Roadmap,” arguing that he “deserves a blue ribbon for fiscal courage.” The CRFB’s senior policy director, Marc Goldwein, served on the Simpson-Bowles commission’s staff, and the CRFB wrote that Johnson “should be commended for putting forward a serious plan to make Social Security financially sustainable.”

The CRFB’s own 2019 Social Security proposal — drafted by MacGuineas, Goldwein, and Chris Towner —  incorporated elements of the Ryan, Simpson-Bowles, and Johnson plans, including an altered benefit formula, a slower-growing measure of inflation, an increased retirement age, and add-on private accounts. The proposal is billed as “maximiz[ing] generational fairness.”

For all their talk of “generational equity,” the originators of TBLC-style narratives have consistently championed plans that impose nearly all of their cuts on younger generations. Few of the proposals they praise would apply changes to current retirees, the demonized boomers.

MacGuineas made this explicit in her recent Senate testimony, assuring Americans that “current seniors do not need to worry about [cuts].” Even cuts that do apply to current retirees, such as the Simpson-Bowles CPI change, would hit younger generations harder, since the boomers have already collected a substantial share of their benefits. Tellingly, the CRFB praised Johnson’s proposal even though it would’ve boosted the incomes of rich boomers by eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits — a provision that currently only affects upper-income retirees.

What gives?

The truth is that most of Social Security’s critics would prefer that the program didn’t exist. That their reform proposals result in a system that’s a terrible deal for younger generations is a feature, not a bug. The worse Social Security becomes, the more likely it is that future generations will eventually turn against it and embrace privatization.

Raising the retirement age would concentrate its costs on poor and working-class members of younger generations — the very group that proponents of ‘generational equity’ claim to care about most.

They’re also anxious to avoid tax increases — at least on the rich. As Greene noted, proponents of the TBLC framework want to “align Wall Street, the defense industrial complex, corporate America, and the media against TBLC,” because “the alternative is tax hikes.”

In a November essay, “Start Demagoguing Against the Old,” which has been cited by Greene, erstwhile far-right provocateur Richard Hanania put the stakes in stark terms. He argued that the popularity of Social Security and Medicare proved that “you should have contempt for the political views of most people.”

According to Hanania, “there’s nobody less deserving of being the beneficiaries of the welfare state than the old,” because “poverty becomes more blameworthy with age.” Hanania warned that unless the public could be persuaded that “the energies of the young and productive are [being] sucked dry to continually make life more and more comfortable for those on death’s door,” the result would be “anti-rich demagoguery” and tax hikes on the well-off.

Indeed, both the CRFB and Third Way have framed raising taxes on the rich as a mythical solution to Social Security’s shortfall, and AEI’s Biggs has written, “If there were an easy way to fix Social Security, it would have been done by now.”

But raising taxes on the rich is the “easy way.” It’s just that these organizations — and, especially, their wealthy donors — don’t want it to happen.

SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY BY TAXING THE RICH

The overarching public policy goal of the American political right and the Republican Party for the past five decades has been cutting taxes for the rich. From Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts through Bush’s 2001 cuts to Trump’s 2017 and 2025 cuts, the first thing almost every Republican president does upon taking office is pass a top-heavy tax cut.

As a result, each time Republicans have left the White House, taxes on the rich have been lower than when they entered. Amid shifting positions on issues like trade and immigration, it’s the one thing that Republicans can agree on.

Besides soaring incomes for the rich, the upshot has been worsening deficits over the course of each Republican president’s team since Reagan. Far from accidental, this has been part of a concerted conservative strategy to “intentionally increase the national debt through tax cuts in order to bind the hands of a subsequent liberal government,” as Bruce Bartlett has summarized. This strategy has largely succeeded in turning Democratic presidents into deficit-conscious “Eisenhower Republicans” by the end of their terms, with the encouragement of the aforementioned corporate-backed “deficit hawk” groups.

But in recent years, Republicans’ strategy of passing bills that pair a huge tax cut for the very rich with small ones for lower- and middle-income Americans has hit a snag. After decades of cuts, federal income taxes — as opposed to regressive payroll, state, and local taxes — are too low on most Americans for there to be much to cut. In response, Republicans at the national level have borrowed a strategy from their counterparts at the state level: pairing tax cuts for the rich with tax hikes on the poor.

Just as Ryan’s “Roadmap” would have dramatically boosted incomes at the top while cutting them for the middle class, both 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and 2025’s combination of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and tariff increases have followed the same pattern: lowering federal taxes for the rich while raising them on nearly everyone else.

The TCJA even borrowed a tool from conservative Social Security proposals, switching the inflation measure used to index tax brackets to a slower-growing one, producing “bracket creep” that will gradually push lower- and middle-income taxpayers into higher brackets over time, a stealth tax increase that even the Cato Institute has criticized in the past. The OBBBA and tariffs are starker still. According to the Budget Lab at Yale, the combined effect is a reduction in income for the bottom 90 percent of households and an increase for the top 10 percent.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz is even pushing Trump’s Treasury to unilaterally cut capital gains taxes by allowing taxpayers to subtract inflation from their gains. This proposal has been rejected by several Republican administrations in the past as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse, but there’s no telling what might happen today. Slashing capital gains taxes has been one of the Right’s primary goals since the 1970s, and the benefits of Cruz’s proposal would accrue almost wholly to the top 1 percent.

Democrats must break the cycle of top-heavy tax cuts, and the Social Security payroll tax cap is the perfect place to start.

Social Security’s projected seventy-five-year shortfall is roughly 1.3 to 1.5 percent of GDP. To put that into perspective, the United States spends 7.3 percent of its GDP on old-age pensions and survivors’ benefits. Contrary to TBLC proponents’ claim that Social Security is too generous, that’s below the thirty-eight-country OECD average, as is the share of recipients’ pre-retirement income replaced by Social Security.

Where is the US below average? Revenue. The average country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) collects 34.1 percent of its GDP in taxes, while the United States collects just 25.6 percent, and the gap between the United States and the OECD average has grown in the past twenty-five years.

Republicans at the national level have borrowed a strategy from their counterparts at the state level: pairing tax cuts for the rich with tax hikes on the poor.

The SSA publishes a comprehensive list of proposed changes to Social Security, and the CRFB incorporates some of them into its interactive Social Security “Reformer” tool. Looking at either, the inescapable conclusion is that the single easiest way to improve Social Security’s long-term solvency is to eliminate the payroll tax cap without proportionally boosting benefits for the rich. This single change would eliminate two-thirds of Social Security seventy-five-year shortfall. Amusingly, President Bush floated the idea of raising the cap, provided the revenue went toward his private accounts.

Why does removing Social Security’s payroll tax cap have such a large effect? Because income inequality has soared in the past fifty years. As a larger and larger share of total income flows to the rich, more of it escapes Social Security taxation. In 1983, 10 percent of income was above the cap. Today, more than 16 percent is. Compared to other OECD countries, our payroll tax cap is low.

While eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap isn’t a popular change with conservatives, it is with the public. Many Americans don’t even know that Social Security’s payroll tax is capped. Currently, Americans don’t pay Social Security payroll taxes on income above $184,500. Only about 6 percent of workers a year make more than that. In other words, a tax increase that only affects the richest 6 percent of Americans each year would fix 67 percent of Social Security’s seventy-five-year shortfall.

This is also the most popular reform according to polls. Throughout the Bush- and Obama-era reform debates, between two-thirds and 80 percent of Americans supported eliminating the cap. Recent surveys have found similar proportions.

The most notable is a recent National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) survey that used trade-off analysis “to learn which of various packages of Social Security policy changes Americans want and are willing to pay for, via their impact on the financing gap.” Unlike single-issue polling, this “forces respondents to weigh the costs of options holistically versus considering individual options in isolation.”

The NASI found that eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap was the most popular reform idea, favored by 68 percent of respondents, including majorities of all income, age, education, and political groups. As NASI summarized, “By far respondents’ greatest aversion is to any reform package that does not change the payroll tax cap.”

The NASI tested both a total elimination of the cap and lifting the cap above $400,000. The latter proposal would leave an untaxed “donut hole” between $184,500 and $400,000 but would comply with President Joe Biden’s foolish pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which he preposterously implied extended to $400,000. The NASI’s study, though, found that a total elimination was more popular than the $400,000 threshold.

Even a recent Cato Institute survey question that primed a negative reaction by saying that eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap “would cover only part of the shortfall and could discourage work” found 2:1 support for its elimination, which is perhaps why Cato left the question out of its report.

The public’s views on eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap are part of a broader pattern of public support for raising taxes on the rich and opposition to cutting Social Security or Medicare. According to the NASI study, “Respondents also have a strong aversion to any reform package that increases the retirement age to 69 or reduces the cost-of-living adjustment — two policies that would reduce benefits.” Indeed, 64 percent said they wanted Social Security to adjust benefits according to the faster-rising inflation measure that better reflects seniors’ cost of living.

Most Americans would even prefer raising their own payroll taxes to cutting Social Security. The NASI study, for example, found that “only 15 percent of respondents say we shouldn’t raise taxes on any American even if it means reducing benefits.” Fifty-seven percent specifically supported gradually raising the payroll tax rates by 2 percentage points.

This change would eliminate 39 percent of Social Security’s seventy-five-year shortfall. It would also be better for Americans born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s than automatic cuts or any of conservatives’ flat benefit proposals. An immediate increase of 1.25 points would eliminate roughly a third of the shortfall, while also ensuring that the vast majority of those cohorts would also enjoy higher benefit-to-tax ratios than those born in the 1950s.

The single easiest way to improve Social Security’s long-term solvency is to eliminate the payroll tax cap without proportionally boosting benefits for the rich.

The Cato survey ironically ended up reaching similar conclusions, despite seemingly intending to generate a Luntz-like UFO viral talking point. The few news stories on Cato’s survey writeup foregrounded a “generational divide” on Social Security based on a question framed to suggest that younger generations preferred cutting benefits to raising taxes. However, Cato’s report noted that “Americans under age 30 are about as likely as older Americans to support increasing taxes to maintain Social Security benefits.” Only when another question posited a scenario where they “would eventually get back less than they paid in” did younger respondents turn against tax hikes.

Moreover, even if younger Americans were to express a relative willingness to cut Social Security, that doesn’t mean it’s a durable viewpoint. Decades of propaganda have told them the program won’t be there for them, and younger people tend not to worry much about a retirement that’s still decades away. During Bush’s Social Security privatization push, some polls found that most Gen Xers were open to private accounts. But those are now the same fiftysomethings strongly opposed to cuts, according to both the NASI and Cato surveys.

Even if Americans of all ages are willing to raise their own payroll taxes, that option should take a back seat to taxing the well-off, which is essential to addressing the real inequality in the United States — the gap between rich and poor, not young and old.

DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS TRUMPS “GENERATIONAL FAIRNESS”

Both marginal and effective tax rates on the ultrarich have fallen sharply since the “Great Compression” of the mid-twentieth century, when income inequality in the United States was low and average workers enjoyed strong real wage growth. Today the richest Americans often pay lower effective tax rates than the middle class, whether measured against their income or their wealth.

Soaring inequality has reshaped the income distribution. Since 1979, real incomes of the middle class have grown 65 percent after taxes and transfers, while those of the very richest have grown by more than 600 percent, according to the CBO. This may even understate the gap, considering that the well-off tend to face lower inflation rates than those further down the income distribution.

One recent study found that while the income gap between the richest and poorest households grew 16 percent between 2002 and 2019 according to typical cost-of-living measures, it rose to 23 percent when accounting for the unequal inflation rates faced by different households.

Conservatives have dubiously attempted to downplay these trends. They also insist that raising taxes on the rich will harm economic growth, even if it reduces inequality. But there’s little reason to take these arguments seriously.

Falling taxes on the rich have fueled rising inequality not only by directly boosting their after-tax incomes but also by indirectly incentivizing their rent-seeking behavior — extracting wealth rather than creating it. Research shows that “a lower top tax rate increases the rate of return to efforts demanding greater compensation from boards of directors,” as economist Andrew Fieldhouse has summarized.

These boards are often composed of fellow executives, creating a mutual back-scratching dynamic that professor Edward Lawler has captured well. “You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market,” he notes. CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322 percent since 1978, pushing the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio from 31:1 in 1978 to 281:1 today.

As a larger and larger share of total income flows to the rich, more of it escapes Social Security taxation.

Making matters worse, numerous studies have found that the ultrarich then use their inflated incomes to lobby for tax cuts and other policies that further enrich them. Since the Supreme Court gutted campaign finance laws in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, the influence of the rich in US politics has exploded. Prior to Citizens United, the share of spending on federal elections by three hundred billionaires and their families was just 0.3 percent. By 2024, it had jumped to 14 percent.

This has exacerbated politicians’ preexisting tendency to cater to the preferences of the rich. As one team of researchers found that “politicians who receive a larger share of their campaign funding from the top one percent donors are more likely to shift their voting toward the preferences of the wealthy,” especially on economic issues “such as taxation, regulation, and social welfare programs,” where “top earners have more convergent — and mostly conservative — views.”

The result is a vicious cycle whereby each inequality-driven increase in political donations leads to the enactment of policies that boost the incomes of the well-off, which begets a further increase in their donations and another round of inequality-increasing policies.

As political scientists Adam Bonica and Howard Rosenthal have explained, “If Republicans promote policies — such as tax changes — that make their current donors immediately wealthier, they can expect a proportional increase in total donations.” Ultimately, as another study concluded, “The erosion of tax progressivity has contributed to raise the political clout of wealthy individuals, via campaign donations,” creating a “spiral between economic inequality and uneven political influence.”

Nor is it clear that raising taxes at the top will harm economic growth, despite the claims of conservative “supply–side“ logic. The most persuasive evidence finds no support for the idea that low taxes on the rich increased economic growth.

A recent widely cited study by David Hope and Julian Limberg of the London School of Economics looked at the economic effects of major tax cuts for the rich in eighteen wealthy countries over a fifty-year period. They found that cuts reliably boosted the incomes of the rich but influenced GDP and employment at a level that was “statistically indistinguishable from zero.” Indeed, a growing body of research suggests that, contrary to conservatives’ claims, income redistribution and lower inequality actually improve growth.

Even if raising taxes on the rich were to pose a trade-off between growth and equality, it’s not clear why most Americans should prioritize the former over the latter. Over the past five decades, the benefits of rising GDP and productivity have flowed to the top. In a 2017 study of the distribution of economic growth in the United States since World War II, economist Pavlina Tcherneva found that “with every postwar expansion, as the economy grew, the bottom 90 percent of households received a smaller and smaller share of that growth.”

The tight labor market and redistributive policies of the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily reversed this trend, but the gains for lower- and middle-income workers have already begun to erode — a trend that President Trump’s regressive tariffs and top-heavy tax cuts have exacerbated.

That trend is directly related to the incentives created by low taxes on the very rich. As Fieldhouse explained, executives’ “successful efforts [to boost their compensation] will come out of workers’ paychecks, not shareholders’ portfolios.” By one estimate, rising inequality since 1979 has cost middle-income households roughly $40,000 per year.

This inequality, rather than too-slow growth, is also the primary cause of younger generations’ declining odds of earning more than their parents in real terms. As the New York Times explained, the research team studying intergenerational mobility ran a clever simulation recreating the last several decades with the same GDP growth but without the post-1970 rise in inequality. When they did, the share of 1980 babies who grew up to out-earn their parents jumped to 80 percent, from 50 percent. The rise was considerably smaller (to 62 percent) in the simulation that kept inequality constant but imagined that growth returned to its old, faster path [of the early post-WWII decades].

Beyond their economic and political effects, taxes on the rich need to be raised to restore faith in the tax system. For decades, large majorities of the public have told pollsters that large corporations and rich individuals don’t pay their fair share of taxes. With leak after leak exposing the elaborate tax avoidance schemes of the ultrarich and President Trump declaring that escaping federal income taxes “makes me smart,” it’s easy to see why the public is cynical about the fairness of the tax system.

From President Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiative to Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) fiasco, both Democratic and Republican presidents have been obsessed with rooting out supposed waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget to restore faith in government spending. But what about faith in the tax system? A recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) survey found that more than 70 percent of Americans said that focusing on wealthy individuals and corporations who exploit tax loopholes would help ensure that other taxpayers “pay their taxes honestly.”

A cynical public might be willing to pay higher taxes for overwhelmingly popular programs like Social Security but not for other worthy policies. Republicans understand this. When President Biden attempted to reduce tax avoidance by the rich by increasing IRS funding, conservative groups organized against it, despite its popularity. Republicans then worked to rescind it piece by piece at the same time that they were inserting new loopholes to benefit the rich.

Congress hasn’t attempted major loophole-closing tax reform since 1986, and even that reform largely undid its loophole-closing effects by dramatically cutting rates on upper-income earners. But unless Democrats restore faith in the tax system, they’ll remain trapped in the anti-tax logic and donor-legislation feedback loop that reliably benefits the Right.

Beyond eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap, Democrats have plenty of options to address the program’s remaining shortfall and fund other priorities by raising taxes on the well-off.

Viewed yearly, Social Security’s shortfall currently totals approximately $450 billion, with annual deficits closer to $250 billion today and larger ones in later years. The yearly “tax gap” — taxes owed that go uncollected — is somewhere between $650 billion and $1 trillion per year. This gap is driven primarily by tax avoidance among the wealthy, and tougher IRS enforcement could close a substantial portion of it.

Beyond their economic and political effects, taxes on the rich need to be raised to restore faith in the tax system.

Democrats should also focus on eliminating “tax expenditures” that benefit the well-off. The exclusion for employer-sponsored retirement plans and IRAs costs between 0.9 and 1.3 percent of GDP each year. Research shows these tax incentives do little to boost retirement savings, and the benefits flow disproportionately to the well-off. As the CBO has reported, “Households in the highest quintile received more than 60 percent of the benefits of the income tax expenditure. The two lowest quintiles together received less than 5 percent of the benefits.”

A bipartisan trio of scholars has proposed wholly or partially eliminating this tax expenditure and redirecting the savings to shore up Social Security. They note that “rollbacks of the ineffective retirement saving tax preference could fill a substantial portion of Social Security’s long-term funding gap.”

The preferential rate on capital gains is nearly as large as the retirement tax expenditure and tilted even more toward the top, flowing almost wholly to the richest 1 percent. Given how skewed capital gains are, many Americans are likely unaware that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than labor income, and surveys show that most Americans support eliminating the preference.

Effectively eliminating the capital gains preference is challenging, given that the rich can change their realization patterns to avoid higher rates. However, a wealth tax, financial transactions tax, or mark-to-market taxation of investment income are viable responses. In terms of Social Security, the SSA has modeled five different options for taxing investment income to fund Social Security, using rates of either 6.2 or 12.4 percent. Depending on the specifics, these changes could close between 18 and 48 percent of Social Security’s long-term shortfall.

To create real intergenerational equity, Democrats should also fix the estate tax. Currently, only the wealthiest 0.14 percent of estates owe any tax, a share that’s fallen in the past twenty-five years due to a series of Republican-led cuts. But the estate tax is the most progressive tax in the US tax system.

Given TBLC proponents’ professed concern about the unfairness of boomers’ wealth, they should support using the estate tax to capture the upcoming “great wealth transfer” set to occur when boomers pass away. Failure to adequately tax inherited wealth “increases wealth inequality within generations and amplifies the inequality due to intergenerational wealth transfers.” If the United States reverted to its 2001-era tax laws, the inheritance tax would have raised $145 billion, rather than $18 billion, in 2021.

In addition to higher rates, the current system could be improved by converting the estate tax to an inheritance tax, which would “raise revenue, increase progressivity, broaden the income tax base, improve equity, and boost economic mobility,” as a recent Brookings Institution study summarized.

A key piece of effective reform is eliminating the “stepped-up basis” loophole, which allows the wealthy to pass investments to their heirs without ever paying capital gains taxes on the gains accrued during their lifetime. The best way to eliminate that loophole would be to tax unrealized gains at death, which would raise roughly $536 billion per decade, according to the CBO.

Democrats should also undo many of the recent cuts introduced by Trump and congressional Republicans. Beyond reversing cuts to top brackets, Democrats should repeal the corporate tax cut known as 100 percent bonus depreciation, which is expected to cost $362 billion per decade, as well as the hollowing out of Biden’s corporate minimum tax, which was projected to raise $222 billion per decade.

Particularly if the payroll tax cap is removed, only a fraction of the above reforms would be needed to fix Social Security’s long-term shortfall. But policymakers should consider directing some of the revenue raised from progressive tax reform toward rebuilding Social Security’s “Missing Trust Fund.”

The yearly ‘tax gap’ — taxes owed that go uncollected — is somewhere between $650 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The great irony of demonizing boomers as the source of Social Security’s shortfall is that scholars have long known that the real beneficiaries of intergenerational inequity in the program were the Lost Generation and Greatest Generation. Americans who retired in Social Security’s first few decades received far more in benefits than they had contributed, a windfall that consumed not only the reserves that would have accumulated but also decades of compound interest on those reserves. The Silent Generation, boomers, and every cohort that followed have been paying for that gift.

The 1939 restructuring of Social Security that benefitted those early generations shifted the program from a funded system toward pay-as-you-go financing. The cost of those missing reserves has been baked into payroll tax rates ever since.

According to research by Alicia Munnell and colleagues at the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, this “Missing Trust Fund” now stands at roughly $27 trillion. Its absence is why Social Security’s payroll tax rate is approximately 3.7 percentage points higher than it would otherwise need to be. Had Congress eliminated the payroll tax cap in 1939, payroll tax rates might be lower today, and we might not be talking about a shortfall at all.

One ambitious solution would be to rebuild the “Missing Trust Fund” and invest it in assets with higher returns than the low-yield Treasury securities the trust fund currently holds, thereby creating what amounts to a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) for Social Security.

Munnell suggests that a 2.3 percent income tax increase would be the fairest mechanism for funding it. There are other options for creating a SWF. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy have recently proposed allowing the government to borrow and invest in stocks and bonds — a less-than-ideal version of the same concept, since it relies on borrowed rather than dedicated revenue.

Whether any of these plans would be worth the risk would depend on the fund’s political independence, among other factors. But it’s hard to imagine today’s Republicans supporting an idea they deemed too socialistic when it was proposed by President Clinton, or progressive Democrats risking Social Security’s guaranteed character without an ironclad guarantee that the Treasury would backfill any investment losses with general revenue.

These revenue options aren’t merely theoretical. Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrats John Larson, Chris Van Hollen, and Sheldon Whitehouse have put forward plans that combine several of the above elements. All secure Social Security’s seventy-five-year solvency, according to the SSA’s chief actuary.

Larson’s and Sanders’s plans also expand Social Security by boosting the minimum benefit and switching to a cost-of-living index that better reflects the higher inflation faced by elderly Americans, among other changes. Three of the four eliminate the payroll tax cap — while, unfortunately, creating a “donut hole” — and three raise taxes on either investment or inherited wealth.

The CRFB has put forward a centrist alternative to fully eliminating the Social Security payroll tax cap or creating a “donut hole.” It calls for replacing the 7.65 percent employer-side payroll tax with an employer compensation tax, which would apply to all compensation, not just wages. This would raise lifetime taxes by less than 1 percent of income on the bottom 80 percent of the population, increasing to over 3 percent for the richest 5 percent. It would close two-thirds of Social Security’s seventy-five-year shortfall and half of Medicare’s. While less progressive than a full elimination of the cap, it’s more progressive than raising existing payroll tax rates.

Whatever combination of tax increases on the rich Democrats use to shore up or even expand Social Security, it’s crucial that they reject any cuts to Social Security. It won’t be easy, given that both Third Way and the PPI are still churning out proposals to slash the program and maintain the payroll tax cap.

But a recent study touted by Democratic moderates like Yglesias who’s supported Social Security cuts in the past — demonstrates that this is political suicide for Democrats.

Political scientists David Broockman and Joshua Kalla presented 6,000 registered voters with pairs of hypothetical 2028 presidential candidates. Each candidate had three of their twenty-nine policy positions randomized to reflect either their party’s standard position or what Broockman and Kalla dubbed an “elite middle” alternative.

For Social Security, the standard Democratic position was “cash benefits should remain at their current level forever, paid for by raising taxes on incomes above $400,000 by 12.4 percent.” The “elite middle” position was the same, except that the tax rate above $400,000 was lowered to 5 percent, and it called for “raising the age when people become eligible for Social Security from 65 to 68 years old.”

Switching from the Democratic to the “elite middle” position on Social Security produced the single largest negative effect on Democratic electability of any issue tested, reducing the likelihood that respondents would pick the Democratic candidate by 1.7 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican position on Social Security — “Social Security cash benefits should decrease slightly over time and the age when people become eligible for Social Security should increase from 65 to 68 years old, in order to avoid raising taxes” — was the least popular option among both Democratic and Republican voters.

WHAT’S LEFT OF TBLC?

Proponents of TBLC-style generational warfare have less to say about the other pillar of the United States’ old-age benefits system: Medicare. This is partly because conservatives like Greene are vehemently opposed to Medicare for All, which is the best way to control overall health care costs in the United States and improve both distributional and generational fairness. It’s also because many of Medicare’s current flaws can be traced directly to previous Republican reforms.

Since the creation of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010, Republicans have struggled to move beyond Presidents Trump’s “concepts of a plan.” That’s largely because “Obamacare” was built on the basic structure of Republican alternatives to single-payer, such as Senate Republicans’ 1993 alternative to “Hillarycare” and Mitt Romney’s 2006 Massachusetts reform.

Republicans’ most prominent proposal in the years since Obamacare was Ryan’s “Roadmap” and its descendants, which called for the voucherization of Medicare under a “premium support” model. The problem was that seniors’ costs would have more than doubled: from $6,150 under traditional Medicare to $12,500 under premium support in 2022, and from $9,159 to $20,700 by 2030 — a crushing burden for those with modest incomes. The trajectory pointed toward something even starker down the road. “By 2050,” as one analysis found, “a Medicare-equivalent policy will be unaffordable for most 65-year-olds.”

Unsurprisingly, Ryan’s plan was deeply unpopular with most Americans. As the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) explained, “There is remarkable agreement on this issue by age, with at least two thirds in each age group supporting keeping Medicare as is. Even among Republicans, a narrow majority (53 percent) say they would prefer to keep Medicare as currently structured.”

Absent popular reform options, proponents of the TBLC narrative have attempted to portray Medicare as overgenerous. According to Greene, “Medicare programs are paying for golf balls, greens fees, social club memberships, horseback riding lessons, and pet food.” The perversity of Greene’s complaint is that he’s referring to Medicare Advantage, which was championed by President Bush and expanded by President Trump.

The Bush administration predicted that Medicare Advantage would harness the magic of the marketplace to provide better care at lower costs, demonstrating the superiority of private insurance over traditional government-run Medicare. As the White House put it at the time, “Private health plans will compete for seniors’ business by providing better coverage at affordable prices — helping to control the costs of Medicare by using marketplace competition, not government price-setting.”

Pointing toward “younger generations of Americans” in 2007, Bush argued that Medicare Advantage pointed the way toward Medicare privatization. “The lesson [of Medicare Advantage] is, is that when you trust people to make decisions in their life, when you have competition it is likely you’ll get lower price and better quality,” he said. “It is the spirit of this reform that needs to be now extended to Medicare overall.”

By any measure, Medicare Advantage failed to deliver on these promises. Study after study shows that Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers at least 20 percent more per enrollee than traditional Medicare without delivering better health outcomes. The perks lambasted by Greene are put in place by private insurers to lure retirees into choosing their inferior plans.

Unsurprisingly, Medicare Advantage hasn’t done anything to curb Medicare’s total costs. Instead, its private insurers collect $75 billion in overpayments from taxpayers each year, and the CRFB estimates that the total could be as high as $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. Those companies then use those taxpayer dollars to bankroll “dark money” groups that lobby to prevent reining in those overpayments. (Amusingly, one of the few remaining conservative health reform proposals is dubbed “Medicare Advantage for All.”)

But it’s also time for Democrats to stop pretending that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the solution to America’s health care problems. The ACA has at best modestly reduced the growth of health care costs. The United States still spends dramatically more per capita and as a percentage of GDP than peer countries. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, the $14,775 per person we spend is almost $5,000 more than the next highest peer country and almost twice the peer-country average.

This extra spending isn’t driven by Americans using more health care but by higher prices. Everything from doctor’s visits to pharmaceuticals to individual procedures costs more in the United States. As the lead author of one of the seminal studies of American health care costs put it, “It’s not that we’re getting more. It’s that we’re paying much more.” Because the US system is so heavily privatized, Americans also bear far higher administrative costs — roughly $925 per person versus $245 in peer nations.

The Supreme Court upheld the ACA, in part, by casting the individual mandate as a tax — an apt framing. When health care premiums are added to the federal, state, and local taxes faced by Americans, the US tax system no longer looks progressive nor does the overall burden appear lower than in countries with public systems. As Matt Bruenig has calculated, adding health premiums to formal taxes puts the effective tax burden on average American workers well into Nordic territory. Indeed, even counting only public health expenditures, the United States spends more than any other country as a percentage of GDP, despite lacking universal coverage.

With the Republican-led expiration of the ACA’s enhanced subsidies, one in ten enrollees is losing coverage. The solution is Medicare for All, which even the CRFB has found would lower health care costs for the vast majority of Americans under any defensible funding mechanism.

Medicare for all is also the definition of generational equity. Today low-income Americans under sixty-five who earn just enough to fall off Medicaid face a brutal jump in costs on the ACA marketplace — a coverage cliff that penalizes any small gain in income — while older Americans approaching retirement age count the days until they qualify for Medicare and escape the private market altogether.

Medicare for All fixes both at once, while meaningfully reducing economic inequality and putting the United States on a path toward a health care system that works for everyone.

Needless to say, conservatives — including Greene — vehemently oppose Medicare for All. Centrist groups like the CRFB, Third Way, and the PPI are critical of Medicare for All too. That might have something to do with the fact that both Third Way and PPI are supported by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Big Pharma’s trade association.

The one area where TBLC advocates have a point is housing — but it’s also a case that highlights the fundamental flaws of generational thinking.

By any measure, housing is less affordable today than at perhaps any time in modern US history. According to Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, “The US home price index is now a whopping 47 percent higher than since early 2020, while “rents remain up 26 percent nationwide since early 2020.” At least one-third of US households are now considered “cost-burdened,” meaning that they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing each month.

There’s no doubt that unaffordable housing has generational effects, particularly when it comes to the dream of home ownership. In 2024, the “new homeowner penalty” — the gap in housing costs between those who bought years ago and those entering the market today —  hit a thirty-four-year high, with predictable results. As the National Association of Realtors reported in November, “The share of first-time home buyers dropped to a record low of 21 percent, while the typical age of first-time buyers climbed to an all-time high of 40 years.”

Building more housing, both by dismantling exclusionary zoning and investing in public housing is the most important first step toward addressing the housing crisis. Interest rates need to be addressed too. As the Consumer Financial Production Bureau reported in late 2024, “Higher rates are significantly decreasing housing affordability, with the mortgage payment on a $400,000 loan rising over $1,200 from trough to peak.” The gap between previous low interest rates and today’s high interest rates, known as “rate lock,” also discourages housing turnover and raises prices.

It’s true that older Americans tend to be more skeptical of zoning reforms and new construction. In part, that’s because they’re more likely to own homes. But driving down housing prices will decrease the net worth of all existing homeowners, including plenty of younger Americans.

That’s okay. There’s no reason to preserve housing values simply to benefit those lucky enough to hold an affordable mortgage, regardless of their age. Indeed, the paper value created by high housing prices should be thought of as a form of collective poverty, not wealth. Everyone would be better off in the long run if housing were more affordable.

For all the TBLC rhetoric, conservatives seem torn on this issue. The Heritage Foundation and Republicans like Senator Mike Lee opposed an Obama-era rule requiring localities that received federal housing funds to reform exclusionary zoning practices that contributed to residential segregation, which Lee warned would allow the federal government to “seize control of local zoning decisions.” But the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which seeks to boost supply by tying federal dollars to local zoning reform and streamlined permitting, passed with large bipartisan support — albeit with more opposition from Republicans than Democrats.

Just what other assistance conservatives support for young renters and would-be homebuyers squeezed out of the housing market is unclear. In his TBLC essay, Greene criticized “focusing exclusively on supply restrictions.” He has also gone further than most conservatives in openly welcoming high interest rates as a cudgel against “wokeness.” His fellow “Claremonster” Ryan Neuhaus, meanwhile, has gestured vaguely at “assistance options that can reopen the path to ownership without inflating scarcity.”

For his part, President Trump seems to like high housing prices. “People that own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy,” Trump said in a January cabinet meeting. “We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home.”

Beyond a lackluster pair of executive orders and pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates despite his inflation-boosting tariffs, Trump has proposed cannibalizing retirement security to paper over the housing crisis by letting prospective homebuyers withdraw money from their 401(k) accounts for a down payment on a house.”

Student loan debt has been a key barrier to young people’s ability to purchase a home. According to a 2024 Federal Reserve study, “Millennials and Generation Xers earn as much as Boomers did, but the larger amount of student loan debt the two younger generations carry can reduce their ability to own a home and, thus, accumulate wealth.” More than 7.7 million borrowers — a record number — were in delinquency and default on $181 billion in federal student loans by the end of 2025, and even some conservatives recognize that student debt is depressing homeownership among younger Americans.

The vast majority of Republicans, though, oppose student debt relief. In 2023, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s popular student debt cancellation plan in response to a lawsuit brought by state Republican attorneys general. More recently, Republicans successfully sued to eliminate Biden’s income-driven repayment plan. Reflecting prevailing opinion among conservatives, Claremont’s Inez Feltscher Stepman has called student loan forgiveness “the regressive grift of the woke revolution.”

But student-debt relief is a proven method of boosting younger generations’ homeownership. A 2020 study by a team of Federal Reserve economists concluded that “a $1,000 increase in student loan debt lowers the homeownership rate by about 1.8 percentage points for public four-year college-goers during their mid-20s.” More recently, an analysis of the effects of Biden’s loan cancellation found that homeownership rates increased by nearly 8 percentage points three-years after cancellation.

Given the effectiveness and popularity, at least when tied to economic need, of student loan forgiveness, Democrats should revive the policy when back in power.

Rather than focus on increasing supply, lowering interest rates, or providing debt relief, Greene’s prime exhibit of housing TBLC in action is “special tax breaks for senior homeowners.” He’s right that age-based property tax breaks are an unfair, kludgey fix for increasing property taxes. But those flaws illustrate a deeper problem. TBLC-style thinking elevates generational concerns over distributional ones — and that inversion distorts every policy question it touches.

The share of cost-burdened older Americans has risen significantly in recent years. But income is the most important determinant of who can afford housing. Both the Congressional Research Service and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies have found that cost burdens decrease linearly with income. More than two-thirds of households making under $30,000 per year are cost burdened, while less than a quarter of those making more than $75,000 are. The regressivity of property taxes only exacerbates the issue.

Historically, the Right’s solution to excessive property taxes was property tax limitation initiatives like California’s Proposition 13, which was proposed by businessman and conservative gadfly Howard Jarvis and touted by Reagan. But since its passage in 1978, Prop 13’s benefits have been concentrated among businesses and well-off homeowners, particularly older ones.

Republicans in states like Florida, Texas, Wyoming, and Indiana have now gone further, championing total property tax abolition. Since Republicans won’t touch progressive taxation, most abolition plans propose replacing lost revenue with budget cuts and sales tax increases — a tax that is even more regressive than the property tax. The result would be Prop 13 on steroids, with the biggest benefits concentrated among well-off homeowners and businesses.

As with all questions of taxation, the best solution is to tie property taxes to ability to pay. “Circuit breakers,” which have long been championed by the grassroots left, do just that by capping property taxes as a percentage of income. Unfortunately, while most states offer some type of circuit breaker, only seven states plus the District of Columbia include homeowners and renters of all ages — and even many of those states’ circuit breakers aren’t generous enough to offer meaningful relief to low- and middle-income residents.

More states should follow Minnesota, which the conservative Tax Foundation considers one of the worst state tax systems, and use progressive revenue sources to fund substantial circuit breakers.

Despite all the talk of ‘generational equity,’ the Right seems to prefer that younger Americans face higher housing costs and a more precarious retirement rather than live alongside more immigrants.

At the federal level, policymakers could help by replacing the mortgage interest deduction — which overwhelmingly benefits wealthy itemizers — with a flat refundable tax credit available to all households regardless of income. This switch would benefit lower- and middle-income households while raising taxes on the rich.

Meanwhile, higher immigration is strenuously opposed not just by elected Republicans but also conservative think tanks like Heritage and Claremont. But the SSA’s actuaries have found that each 400,000-person increase in immigration would cut Social Security’s long-term shortfall by roughly 10 percent. More immigration would also improve Medicare’s solvency and boost housing construction. But despite all the talk of “generational equity,” the Right seems to prefer that younger Americans face higher housing costs and a more precarious retirement rather than live alongside more immigrants.

SAME AS IT EVER WAS

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he was eager to distance himself from the Social Security and Medicare plans championed by decades of Republicans and the losing Mitt Romney–Paul Ryan ticket. To win the White House, he foreswore any attempts to cut old-age programs and even praised single-payer health care. That was a sharp break from his past comments, when he called for the privatization of both Social Security and Medicare.

FALLING IN BEHIND TRUMP

Republicans temporarily scuttled talk of cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but the TBLC-style talk signals that’s changing. During Trump’s first term, Republican Senator Joni Ernst said that lawmakers should discuss fixing Social Security “behind closed doors.” In 2023, the Republican Study Committee put forward a proposal to cut Social Security modeled on Sam Johnson’s 2016 plan. Later that year, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson proposed another Simpson-Bowles-esque fiscal commission. Despite the aforementioned political disaster that cuts to Social Security would pose for Democrats, several Democrats have recently joined the call — garnering predictable praise from the CRFB.

President Trump, meanwhile, is returning to his old ways. His Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has referred to the administration’s new “baby bond” accounts as “a backdoor for privatizing Social Security,” and Trump has said that he’s “looking at“ Australia’s system of individual accounts “very seriously.”

The CRFB is providing a boost to the TBLC narrative by hosting an upcoming panel titled “Boomerang: Wealth, Retirement, and the Generational Divide” featuring Greene, Yglesias, Goldwein, and Wall Street Journal writer Greg Ip, whose article “Over 65? Congratulations, You Own the Economy” rehashed all of the misleading measures of “intergenerational inequality” and was praised by Greene.

Given that conservatives and centrist Democrats won’t stop pushing phony claims of generational inequity to distract from the real issues of economic inequality, it’s crucial for younger Americans to remember that the middle-income millennial household making $86,000 has more in common with the median boomer retiree making $60,000 including Social Security than with Mark Zuckerberg.

Insofar as younger generations are struggling to afford homes, health care, and save for retirement, it’s more important than ever to ensure that Social Security and Medicare aren’t cut before they can collect them. Taxing the rich is the best path forward, but it’s the one that deep-pocketed interests want most to avoid.

So stop focusing on generational warfare, and start focusing on class warfare.

ATTACHMENT FOUR – FROM CATO

A REALITY CHECK ON THE INEQUALITY PANIC

Alarmist narratives shape public opinion and encourage policymakers to pursue sweeping interventions that may do more harm than good.

By Chelsea Follett March 23, 2026

This article appeared in Washington Examiner on March 23, 2026.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for far higher taxation in a recent blog entry, arguing that current wealth concentration is higher than that of the Gilded Age and is about to get worse globally. The chart-topping singer Billie Eilish implored billionaires to give away their money, while New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani has gone further, opining, “I don’t think we should have billionaires” because we live in “a moment of such inequality.” If anything is having a moment, it is the conviction that inequality has grown urgent enough to justify a muscular policy response.

But the facts don’t support this. Not only has global income inequality fallen over the long run — contrary to the popular narrative — but inequality has also declined in education, health, and a host of other areas. The world is now more equal across a range of factors, from lifespan and childhood survival to internet access and schooling. The more broadly one examines inequality, the more encouraging the data appear. It turns out that even the shock of COVID-19 failed to erase decades of progress toward a wealthier and more equal world.

Indeed, the data show a pronounced decline in global inequality over the past few decades, driven largely by rising prosperity in poorer countries. During the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, progress slowed sharply. Some indicators stalled and a few modestly worsened. But the gains accumulated before the crisis were not undone.

In short, the damage to human well-being was more limited than many feared.

Alarmist narratives shape public opinion and encourage policymakers to pursue sweeping interventions that may do more harm than good.

Another recent analysis published in The Economist finds that global inequality in consumption spending is falling. In 2000, the richest 10% of humanity spent 40 times more than the poorest 50%. In 2025, they spent around 18 times more. Using data from World Data Lab, they find that the poorest 50% now out-consume the richest 1%, breaking from past trends.

Yet many think that only large-scale redistribution can stop runaway worldwide inequality. Figures as diverse as Amodei, Eilish, and Mamdani are far from alone in embracing this view. Over the past few years, calls for a worldwide wealth tax, a vast increase in foreign aid spending, and other unprecedented measures are gaining steam across academia, non-profits, the press, and international organizations like the United Nations.

That conclusion is premature. Getting the facts straight is essential, because misunderstanding global inequality can push policymakers toward harmful solutions.

The record on foreign aid is far less encouraging than its advocates suggest: decades of evidence show that aid frequently fails to deliver sustained development and bears no reliable relationship to long-term economic growth. Worse, the fixation on ever larger aid flows often crowds out the harder work of domestic reform. In some cases, foreign aid has been shown to weaken political institutions, entrench bad governance, and slow the process of democratization.

Wealth taxes have their own problems, from high administrative costs and enforcement challenges to low revenue production and invasion of financial privacy. These problems help explain why so many of the countries that have implemented wealth taxes in the past — such as France, Germany, and Sweden— later abolished the tax. Perhaps the worst of all, by discouraging risk-taking, wealth taxes suppress investment and growth, effects that would be felt in both rich and poor countries and would likely prove especially damaging to development in the world’s poorest economies.

Recent work on multidimensional inequality suggests that the world has not been drifting toward ever greater gaps, but that the rich and the poor have been converging in material comfort. Calls for global wealth taxes or massive new aid programs often rest on the assumption that international trade and economic freedom have failed to deliver broadly shared gains. Yet the long-term evidence suggests the opposite.

The pandemic offers two lessons here: First, it highlights just how sensitive progress is to disruptions in markets. It depends on conditions that allow growth to occur and persist, including functioning markets and stable institutions. Many of the proposed policy solutions risk undermining that progress.

The second lesson is that while the pandemic represented a hurdle in the path of progress, the long-term trend toward lower global inequality is holding strong.

Alarmist narratives shape public opinion and encourage policymakers to pursue sweeping interventions that may do more harm than good. A clearer view of the data counsels caution rather than panic.

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM INVESTOPEDIA

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TAXES IN THE U.S.

By Beverly Bird Updated September 03, 2025

Fact checked by Vikki Velasquez

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that nothing is certain in this world but death and taxes. That was back in 1789 and it still holds true in the U.S. today.¹

U.S. taxation has thrived and faltered from implementing the first income tax to various attempts at tax reform. Some changes have been more taxpayer-friendly than others. Here's a closer look at the history of the U.S. tax system.

Key Takeaways

· The need to finance the Civil War created one of the first versions of a federal income tax in 1862.

· The U.S. income tax was officially born on Feb. 3, 1913, when Congress ratified the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

· Less than 1% of Americans had to pay the tax in its earliest days.

· Major tax reforms have been ongoing for decades.

· Some consumer dollars can effectively be taxed twice when excise taxes come into play.

EARLY HISTORY OF U.S. TAXATION

Benjamin Franklin spoke about taxation well before the U.S. officially launched an income tax. Before the Civil War, the nation derived most of its income from banknotes. The tax rate imposed on individuals was minimal, from 1% to 1.5%. American citizens received virtually nothing in exchange. Civil services and protections on the frontier and coasts were minimal.²

The need to finance the Civil War resulted in the first version of an income tax in 1862. President Lincoln signed a law that created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and imposed an income tax on individuals ranging from rates of 3% on incomes of $600 to $10,000 and 5% on incomes over $10,000.³

This version of the tax was repealed 10 years later but it came back to life in 1894 with the Wilson Tariff Act. The act levied a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled one year later that the tax was unconstitutional.⁴³

“Through the Civil War and beyond, income tax was tried, disputed in the courts, and finally resolved with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, constitutionally establishing income taxes,” according to Thomas J. Cryan, an attorney and the author of Disrupting Taxes.⁵

BIRTH OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX

The federal income tax as we know it was officially born on Feb. 3, 1913, when Congress ratified the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution after an on-again-off-again effort that lasted decades.⁴

The amendment read, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and regard to any census or enumeration.”³

However, less than 1% of Americans had to pay the tax in the first days after its inception, thanks to the amendment’s provisions for numerous taxpayer-friendly deductions and exemptions. The rate was only 1% of net income at that point.⁴ Congress later added a 6% rate for incomes of more than $500,000.³

Numerous tweaks and add-ons occurred in the 1940s. The Revenue Act of 1942 increased tax rates and the number of citizens who had to pay it. The Current Tax Payment Act passed a year later, heralding the beginning of the tax withholding process by employers. Standard deductions were created in 1944 with the passage of the Individual Income Tax Act.³

“The withholding system was implemented simply because the collection was easy,” says Cryan, “not because it was the soundest, most equitable, or most efficient tax system.”

However, the Internal Revenue Service attempted to make the tax process more efficient over the years. The first toll-free telephone line was introduced in 1965. Electronic filing began in 1986 although it was limited at first. Taxpayers who owed money were able to electronically file their returns beginning in 1992.³

TAX REFORMS AND MAJOR CHANGES

Reforms have been ongoing. The federal government has made some major changes to the tax system incrementally.

THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT)

Annette Nellen, a certified public accountant (CPA) and attorney who serves as a professor and the director of the MST Program at San Jose State University cites the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as a major adjustment. The AMT was created in 1969 because “it was found that a few hundred high-income individuals were able to use a combination of exclusions, deductions, and credits to pay little or no income tax,” Nellen says.⁶⁷

THE TAX REFORM ACT (TRA)

Nellen also mentions the Tax Reform Act that was legislated in 1986. She says it broadened the AMT so more high-income individuals would be subject to it.

“The Tax Reform Act of 1986 made numerous changes to the tax law including taxing ordinary and capital gains income at the same rate and there were only two brackets (15% and 28%). It also added passive activity loss limitation rules that shut down a tax shelter industry that many middle- to high-income individuals had been using to minimize their taxes.”⁸

THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT (ATRA)

The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) restored the top income tax rate to 39.6% in 2012 after it was cut to 35% by President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.⁹

President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) into law in 2017 and introduced some sweeping changes to the U.S. tax system. They included significantly increasing standard deductions and reducing personal income tax rates. The 35% top rate created by ATRA had increased back to 39.6% but the TCJA dropped it to 37%. The 15%, 25%, 28%, and 33% rates imposed on lower-income earners were cut to 12%, 22%, 24%, and 32% respectively.¹⁰

The cap on the itemized deduction for interest paid on home mortgages was reduced, however, and a reduced limit was imposed on the state and local tax (SALT) itemized deduction as well. Some miscellaneous itemized deductions were eliminated entirely.¹⁰

The TCJA tax cuts were made permanent by Congress in 2025.

THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) came along in 2022. According to Nellen, “The IRA included numerous new and modified energy credits for individuals and businesses. It's possible that some of these credits may be repealed or downsized as part of any extension of expiring provisions of the TCJA or new tax breaks such as not imposing income tax on tips or overtime pay of employees.”

EXCISE AND "SIN" TAXES

Taxation doesn’t begin and end with those taxes imposed on income and earnings. Excise taxes, often called sin taxes, can take a hefty bite out of taxpayers’ bank accounts as well. These taxes are imposed on the sale of specific products and services.

They’re generally paid by retailers, producers, and wholesalers but these entities pass them down to the consumers who purchase them. Commonly affected purchases include alcohol, tobacco, health insurance, and gasoline. The excise tax on cigarettes averages about $1 a pack. Beer and wine are typically taxed at a lower rate than distilled spirits.¹¹

“The key purpose of excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco is to tax undesired behavior, particularly the purchase of cigarettes by young people,” Nellen says, “and to generate a small amount of revenue. There are several federal excise taxes, but the ones on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline are best known. Excise taxes are a small part of government tax collections, representing less than 2% of total federal tax revenues. For 2023, excise taxes were $75.8 billion, representing 1.7% of total tax collections of $4.4 trillion.”¹²

Cryan agrees about the deterrent nature of these taxes. “Excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco traditionally lean to increased prices at the time of the retail sale. This price increase will often reduce consumption which can have the follow-along effect of a decrease in consumption related to less health harms.”

Numerous consumers continue to spend that extra dollar on a pack of cigarettes, but it’s a safe guess that their wallets will feel the effect because they also have to deal with income tax on that money.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Taxation in the U.S. has always been a shapeshifting beast and this can be exacerbated by all its various applications, from income to that modest purchase you just made at your favorite liquor store. Tax laws don’t just change every five to ten years. They can occur annually just as you’re getting used to the last ones that were imposed.

They’re inevitable, however, just as Benjamin Franklin asserted. Taxpayers can benefit from keeping a watchful eye on the ever-evolving changes and checking in with a tax professional when changes are looming so they can best prepare for the impact whether it be affirmative or negative.

ATTACHMENT SIX – FROM TAX POLICY CENTER/BROOKINGS

WHAT THE UGLY HISTORY OF TAX POLICY OVER THE PAST FOUR DECADES MEANS FOR THE FUTURE

By Howard Gleckman September 26, 2025

The first big revenue bill I wrote about was the massive 1981 tax cut engineered by President Reagan. The most recent was July’s big budget bill that cut taxes by about $4 trillion over the next decade, largely designed by President Trump. 

As I look back on these four decades, I’ve seen tax policy and the way it is produced change dramatically. And not, sadly, for the better.

· The traditional goals of good tax policy have historically been equity, efficiency, and simplicity. It may be impossible to achieve all three, but recent tax bills have accomplished none. Instead, tax legislation has become a tool largely to advance narrow social or economic goals rather than produce necessary revenue to fund government. Tax cuts steadily add to massive and growing deficits.

· Policymakers have not only slashed tax rates but they’ve gutted the income tax base.

· Congress and Trump have made the IRS far less capable of administering the federal income tax. As a result, risks to the integrity of the system have never been higher and taxpayer frustration is likely to increase.

· Congressional tax-writing committees have ceded much of their authority to party leaders, leading to poorly drafted bills and, often, unintended consequences.

· Even congressional leadership is losing influence. The president, aided by recent court decisions, is wresting tax-writing authority from Congress itself.

· Bipartisan legislation, once a hallmark of tax bills, has become an exception rather than the rule. Extreme partisanship makes tax policy more unstable than ever. 

All of this suggests the income tax may no longer be sustainable as the primary source of federal revenue. In coming years, it could well be complemented, and perhaps, supplanted, by some form of consumption tax. The question is whether that new revenue source will be a bad consumption tax, such as a tariff, or a well-designed Value-Added Tax, cash-flow tax, or even a carbon tax. 

It would take a book to detail all these trends, so I’ll focus on just a few.

THE SHRINKING TAX BASE

First, think about tax rates and the tax base. When I came on the scene, the top marginal individual income tax rate was 70 percent. Today, it is roughly half that, at 37 percent.  

At the same time, even as lawmakers cut rates, they’ve blown a hole in the amount of income that could be taxed. They did both by directly excluding income from tax and by adding deductions that lowered taxable income.

Long before my time, employer-sponsored health insurance was excluded from taxable income. Today, 60 percent of non-elderly Americans have this insurance, and the value of the employer share of tax-free premiums for a family has grown to nearly $26,000.  

But Congress has made many other forms of income tax-free, most recently, some tips and overtime pay. And it has added to the long list of expenses that taxpayers can use to lower their taxable income. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act scrapped a few, but these were eclipsed by new additions, including the special 20 percent deduction for pass-through businesses such as partnerships and sole proprietorships.

As a result of these changes, together with spending increasing as well, the Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next decade, the gap between federal revenue and spending will reach 6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, or more than $2 trillion annually. 

That simply is unsustainable. Yet few in Congress appear to show any real interest in doing anything about it. 

THE FAILED PROCESS

In many ways, these dismal results are symptoms of a failed process. Not to sound overly nostalgic, but back in the day, tax policy was heavily influenced by a cadre of highly experienced experts at Treasury and in Congress.

Of course, politics intervened, but when lawmakers wanted to accomplish some goal, staff could show them how best to do it. Congressional hearings illuminated difficult challenges and identified solutions. Bills often took years to make their way through the process. But that frequently resulted in better legislation. 

The landmark 1986 Tax Reform Act was spearheaded by Reagan, the Democratic House Ways & Means Committee Chair Dan Rostenkowski, and the Republican Senate Finance Committee Chair Bob Packwood. But the critical details were developed by largely anonymous staffers on Capitol Hill and at Treasury. 

Today, much of that staff expertise has been lost. Instead, many professional Hill staff move on after a couple of years, often to more lucrative lobbying or legal jobs advising private sector clients.

The goal is no longer good tax policy. It is only to win. 

Thus, bills are increasingly partisan and, as a result, policy shifts with the political winds, and taxpayers are unable to plan more than a year or so ahead.   

On top of all this, the IRS is scaling back enforcement efforts, and Congress continues to slash the agency’s budget and staff, making administration of the income tax increasingly difficult.  

All these trends may lead to some form of consumption tax. Trump, of course, already has shifted about $3.3 trillion in revenue from income taxes to tariffs, assuming his import taxes remain for a decade. 

The problem is that Trump’s exorbitant, constantly changing, and counterproductive tariffs risk damaging the US economy and probably are not sustainable. 

What, then, will replace them? That, I believe, will be the next big question for tax policy.

ATTACHMENT SEVEN – FROM USA TODAY

WHAT IS A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX? HOW IT DIFFERS FROM INCOME TAX.

By Daniel de Visé April 11, 2026, 5:03 a.m. ET

FULL SUMMARY

The article explains that a national consumption tax would levy a federal tax on spending rather than earnings, contrasting it with the current income‑tax system. It outlines the FairTax Act of 2025, which proposes a 23% federal sales tax to replace most federal taxes, and notes the proposal’s history and criticism that it would primarily benefit wealthy taxpayers.

Some U.S. states have sales tax rates as high as 10%. Other states impose no sales tax at all.

Consumption tax, the category that includes sales tax, is often a footnote at the end of a receipt, but it can impact your wallet all the same. 

A tariff is also a consumption tax. And tariffs are becoming quite familiar to American taxpayers, thanks to President Donald Trump's ongoing campaign of import taxes.

Members of Congress make perennial efforts to expand consumption taxes. The FairTax Act of 2025 was the latest bid to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace income tax and other levies with a national sales tax. The measure has yet to reach a vote in the full House or Senate.

With tax season winding down, here’s everything you need to know about a national consumption tax.

WHAT IS A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX?

Consumption tax is a tax on goods or services – what you spend, rather than what you earn. In the United States, consumption tax comes in the form of retail sales tax and excise tax (tax imposed on certain goods or activities, like alcohol or fuel), as well as the aforementioned tariffs.

A national consumption tax would create a federal tax on consumer goods, possibly to be emphasized over (or even replace) income tax and payroll tax.

DOES THE U.S. HAVE A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX?

The United States does not currently have a national consumption tax. Other countries do, including Japan, which has a 7.8% standard and 6.24% reduced tax rate for items like food, drink and some newspapers. More than 175 countries, including all of Europe, impose a Value-Added Tax, which taxes goods and services at each stage of production. 

Consumption taxes in the United States are on a state-by-state basis. Almost every state imposes sales tax, except for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, which instead allows cities to charge a local sales tax. California boasts the country’s highest state sales tax rate at 7.25%. 

The FairTax Act would eliminate most current federal taxes in favor of a 23% federal sales tax. Tax experts have warned the act would mostly benefit the wealthy, who would see major tax cuts.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Fair Tax was first introduced in Congress in 1999 and has been reintroduced in each Congress since. In other words, you can probably expect more Fair Tax legislation in the future.

ATTACHMENT EIGHT – FROM US NEWS

In the heat of tax season, Olivier Knox discussed the latest survey results from the Pew Research Center, which show 60% of Americans are very bothered by the idea that wealthy individuals and corporations don’t pay their fair share in taxes.

Republican respondents had more of an issue with the taxes they personally pay, with 66% saying they pay more than their fair share. Democrats cared less about their own taxes, but they are much more worried than Republican respondents by the idea that rich folks don’t pay enough, 81% to 41%, respectively.

With the rising cost of living likely to play a big part in this year’s midterms, anger over taxes could be a deciding factor.

ATTACHMENT NINE – FROM OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING

By Rob McKenna

Let's Go Washington founder Brian Heywood... long a fighter for parental rights and against transgender participants in girls' sports... filed an emergency petition that asks justices to direct Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to process the referendum paperwork submitted Monday that would allow Heywood’s group must submit signatures of 154,455 voters by June 10 to qualify for the fall ballot.

“Time is already running out. Not granting accelerated review of this matter would unfairly render the entire process moot by significantly limiting the time available,” to collect signatures, Heywood argues in court documents.

He filed a referendum on Senate Bill 6346 shortly after Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the legislation known as the “millionaires’ tax.” It imposes a 9.9% levy on household wage income above $1 million starting in 2028.

While the lawyers litigate and collect their paychecks, the Citizen Action Defense Fund also plans to sue over the tax, arguing it is unconstitutional.

ATTACHMENT TEN – FROM NEW YORK POST

GUESS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WASHINGTON STATE ROLLED OUT A STEEP NEW INCOME TAX?

By Ari Hoffman Published April 6, 2026, 6:00 a.m. ET

When Washington state Democrats passed a new income-tax bill in March, the disastrous impacts started even before Gov. Bob Ferguson signed it into law.

Corporations and big-name entrepreneurs began a mass exodus to avoid the heavy so-called “millionaire’s tax” — a major movement of capital flight.

But even as wealth departs the Evergreen State, other Washingtonians are gearing up to fight.

Locals love their state — the mountains, the lakes, spectacular, unbeatable summers.

They also love their no-state-income-tax status, long thought sacrosanct under Washington’s constitution.

Some aren’t ready to give that up.

Why Californians are leaving — and what Gavin Newsom is spending $19M to hide

NYC business leader warns exodus is brewing over Zohran Mamdani’s tax hike crusade: ‘Exploring options’

Long Islanders struggle as utility bills surge 20%: ‘It’s all adding up’

Enter Brian Heywood, founder of the grassroots citizen action group Let’s Go Washington.

“People that should have been fighting us, they’re now going, ‘holy crap, I’ve had enough,’” Heywood told me. That includes moderates, independents and even left-leaning voters.

“People in that stripe are also saying, man, this is too much,” Heywood said.

So he’s forming “a very broad coalition” to push back.

Public opposition to the new tax, a 9.9% levy on incomes over $1 million, gives Heywood hope.

Over 100,000 Washingtonians registered their displeasure during public testimony on the bill.

Local voters have rejected an income tax 11 times in the state’s history, and a citizen initiative pushing back against a similar measure in 2024 was signed by over 446,000 people.

Now, the opposition is taking two forms.

Last week, hours before Ferguson’s signature made the law official, former Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna announced plans to file a lawsuit challenging it under the state constitution.

“Washington’s constitution is clear, and the courts have been equally clear for nearly a century — income is property, and progressive income taxes are unconstitutional under existing law,” said McKenna.

The new income tax “creates a direct conflict with binding precedent.”

Legal efforts may hit a wall at the state’s Supreme Court — an elected body that has consistently ruled in the hard left’s favor in recent years.

But with five of the court’s nine seats up for election in November, Heywood sees an opportunity.

Anger over the tax issue could spur Washingtonians to the polls to select five new justices willing to uphold the state’s tax traditions.

And the legal challenge is only one front of the battle.

Last week, Heywood announced plans to spearhead a citizen referendum to repeal the income tax outright.

“Because unlike King Bob, we believe that the framers of our state’s constitution meant it,” he said.

Let’s Go Washington must gather 200,000 signatures by June to qualify the referendum for the upcoming election.

Heywood is confident it can be done.

“Our state constitution is the law of the land and not a suggestion that the legislature and the governor can ignore on a whim,” he said.

The final battle will take time, and will also come at the ballot box — challenging every Democrat who championed the income tax, and swinging control of the state legislature back to a common-sense, business-friendly mindset.

Ex-Starbucks CEO snaps up $44M Florida penthouse —  as he becomes latest to flee Seattle’s ‘millionaires’ tax’

Political battles are costly — and daunting. Heywood, McKenna and others are fired up now, but advertising, signature-gathering and campaigning all come at a high sticker price.

So while some plan to fight, many Washingtonians have already chosen flight.

Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz announced his move to Florida the same day the new tax was passed.

His company’s flagship office building in Seattle is rapidly emptying as employees relocate to new corporate headquarters in Nashville.

Zach Abraham, CIO of Bulwark Capital Management, told me he’s making plans to move his company out of state.

At a recent board meeting involving firms managing $4 billion of investable capital, he said, “we agreed, not only are we leaving, we won’t make any investments in start-ups in this state either.”

“That’s just the tip of the iceberg,” Abraham added.

Microsoft cut more than 3,100 jobs statewide.

Amazon cut more than 2,300 jobs in the Seattle area.

Meta laid off hundreds more while pulling back from major office commitments.

The tech layoffs have contributed to a state-specific rise in unemployment, even as the national labor market has improved.

A whopping 44% of employers are considering moving their personal residence out of the state, the Association of Washington Business found in a February survey, with 64% citing taxes as the primary concern.

Independent brick-and-mortar businesses across the greater Seattle area report declining foot traffic, and the city’s office vacancy rate has risen to over 33%.

Yet even as Abraham makes plans to join the exodus, he has hope for the political uprising.

“People that would not have ever aligned are aligning,” he told me. “I see people opening wallets and getting serious.”

The feisty, independent-minded Washington where he was born and raised still remains, Abraham said.

“I think the old girl’s got a couple of punches left.”

PEANUT GALLERY

· Dave C

10 hours ago

I laughed at these people in Washington State seeming to be so upset with their new millionaire tax. The tax was voted on and signed into law by the politicians the Washingtonians have elected to office year after year after year. I have a suggestion, stop with the wasteful time-consuming referen...

See more

Reply

212

Share

o NtvNyer59

7 hours ago

Agreed. It boggles the mind how many people need to learn the "hard way" that you get what you vote for. Repeatedly the Deamon rats have demonstrated that when their poor policies cause chaos and result in inevitable budget shortfalls, they will go to their favorite course of action and that is to ...

See more

Reply

50

Share

2 replies

Show 9 more replies

· D D

10 hours ago

Stop punishing people for working and making money. Stop the endless flow of freebies to those who won’t work and feel entitled to the fruit of someone else’s labor. Develop work programs, and fair taxing.

Reply

202

Share

o BigB

10 hours ago

Those Endless Freebies get them Votes, so don’t expect that to change anytime soon, especially when that Mentality has been Ingrained for 50-60 Years now. That coupled with Nonsensical Policies, and Pet Projects that’s a total waste of Money. When you spend OTHER People’s Money, you couldn’t care l...See more

Reply

97

Share

Show 3 more replies

· Granny513

10 hours ago

Article forgot to mention that Seattle pro ball teams may have more trouble recruiting high salaried players with this millionaire tax. They will have to pay more to offset the almost 10 percent income tax.

Reply

104

Share

o BigB

10 hours ago

Recently a Free Agent Pitcher from Arizona was offered a Huge Contract from the San Diego Padres, and turned it down to stay in Arizona for less Money, stating that He didn’t want to pay Higher Taxes. Washington State is No Different.

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN – FROM THE INSTITUTE ON TAXATION AND ECONOMIC POLICY (ITEP)

By Michael Ettlinger April 6, 2026

Key Findings

Trump-Republican tax policy in the first year of the president’s second term will:

· Increase taxes paid by middle-income Americans by an average of $900 in 2026

· Cut taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent by a trillion dollars over the next 10 years

· Result in large profitable corporations paying little or no corporate income tax

· Cut taxes for foreign shareholders in U.S. businesses by $32 billion in 2026

The first year of President Trump’s second term has brought major changes in U.S. tax policy. The president, in concert with Congress, has dramatically increased tariff taxes, enacted large tax cuts that primarily benefit the well-off and corporations, dramatically curtailed IRS enforcement, and issued legally problematic regulations.

These changes have had significant impacts on taxpayers.

In 2026, middle-income Americans will see their taxes go up by an average of $900 relative to what they would have paid had the tax policies that existed at the beginning of 2025 simply continued.

The wealthy, on the other hand, will see substantial tax cuts. Over the next 10 years the wealthiest 1 percent are slated to pay at least a trillion dollars less in taxes than they would have if Congress and the President had done nothing.

The direct effect on corporations has also been substantial as more and more companies are paying little or nothing in federal corporate income tax.

The largess has not been limited to the American wealthy and corporations: foreign owners of U.S. businesses will save $32 billion in taxes in 2026.

These tax cuts have come at a substantial price. The legislated tax reductions passed by Congress and signed by the president in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) are forecast to add $4.6 trillion to the federal government’s debt over the coming decade. In the same bill, to whittle down that price tag, net spending cuts amount to a $1.2 trillion reduction, with the lion’s share coming from health care.

While much of what has happened under President Trump has been done by duly elected officials, acting within legal bounds, the administration has shown little deference to the rule of law as it has imposed illegal tariffs, illegally implemented regulations, and gutted IRS enforcement initiatives.

TAX INCREASES FOR TYPICAL AMERICANS

The biggest change in tax policy affecting most Americans in 2026 is President Trump’s tariff taxes. Although the Supreme Court found many of his initial round of tariffs to be illegal, the administration is quickly finding alternative ways to reimpose them. The tariff taxes in 2026 will likely end up of at least the same magnitude as the ones in effect at the end of 2025.

The other tax policy changes that directly affected typical American taxpayers were a set of choices by Congress.

Without Congressional action, several tax provisions were set to expire at the end of 2025. Most of them were from the tax bill passed in the first Trump administration. One measure, a tax credit to help Americans defray some of the cost of health insurance coverage, was passed during the Biden administration. In both cases the authors of the provisions intended the measures to be continuing. They were passed as temporary measures primarily to minimize the ostensible 10-year costs to comply with Congressional budget rules.

In OBBBA, Congress largely extended the earlier Trump tax bill provisions while it allowed the termination of the Biden health tax credit. In addition to the choices Congress and the President made regarding which expiring provisions to extend and which not to extend, OBBBA added new tax breaks. These new tax breaks included corporate tax cuts and partial exemptions of tips and overtime income.

When added together, all these tax changes result in a tax increase for most Americans. The middle 60 percent of Americans will pay $900 more, on average, compared to what they would have paid if Trump had not increased tariffs and Congress had ensured that the tax policy in effect for 2025, prior to OBBBA, had been left in place. Table 1 shows the average tax increase for the middle 60 percent for each state and the District of Columbia.

INCREASE IN INCOME INEQUALITY

The 2025 tax policy changes under President Trump and Congress will increase income inequality in 2026.

The actions and inaction described in the previous section will cause taxes overall to go up on average for those in the lower income 95 percent of the population. For the top 5 percent, however, taxes will go down on average. Although tariffs do affect higher-income Americans, they claim a smaller share of their income. The OBBBA tax cuts favoring investors are much larger for high-income taxpayers than their added tariff bill. The net impact across all incomes can be seen in Figure 2. The top 1 percent sees a net tax cut equal to 0.4 percent of their income, the middle 20 percent sees an increase equal to 1.2 percent of their income, and the poorest 20 percent sees a tax hike equal to 3.1 percent of their income.

Figure 2

Download Figure 2

More detail and national and state-by-state tables can be found here.

Big Tax Cuts Fuel Growing National Debt

When official budget scorers project budget deficits and the national debt, they assume that law will remain unchanged. That means that they assume that tax provisions that are set to expire will actually expire—even if that doesn’t reflect the genuine intent of policymakers or political reality. As a result of OBBBA’s extension of expiring tax provisions and additional tax cuts, official estimates of future deficits and debt are substantially higher. As of February 2026, the Congressional Budget Office projects federal budget deficits to be a cumulative $22 trillion in the 10 years from 2025 through 2034. The OBBBA tax cuts are responsible for $4.6 trillion of that.¹

There is much debate as to the level of debt which the country can accrue before there are significant economic problems. Some things are, however, not in serious dispute.

First, whether we know the exact level or not, there is a point at which the debt starts to cause significant economic problems, whether that is in the form of rising interest rates, high inflation, or other consequences.

Second, the higher the debt, the more debt service eats away at other priorities. In 2026, interest on the debt is slated to be 14 percent of federal spending, rising to 18 percent by 2035. The trillion dollars of interest projected for 2026 is more than the projected spending on defense, Medicaid, and almost every other individual government agency or program.

Third, the country has looming spending obligations that will be harder to manage with higher debt. Social Security and Medicare are the most widely noted but there are many other unmet needs and areas of rising costs.

In short, this was not the time to add $4.6 trillion in debt by cutting taxes for people and companies that don’t need it.

Figure 3

Download Figure 3

TAX CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE WEALTHY PLUMMET

In 2026 the highest income 20 percent get a $380 billion tax cut with $117 billion going to the richest 1 percent alone. The tax cuts for the top 1 percent over the next 10 years add up to a trillion dollars. To put the $117 billion going to the top 1 percent in 2026 in perspective, it is more than the federal government will spend in 2026 on the combined budgets of the Department of Education, Department of Transportation, Department of Justice, the State Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Or, put in another context, that $117 billion could buy every Major League Baseball team (all of them together) or pay for the combined cost of every wedding in the country for a year, as we described in July along with other comparisons.

In addition to the hundreds of billions in tax cuts from OBBBA, the wealthiest have also saved many billions with the elimination of more than $40 billion over 10 years in IRS tax enforcement funding that was aimed specifically at cracking down on tax evasion by the wealthy. The Trump administration has also, administratively, strangled IRS enforcement initiatives targeted at high-wealth tax sheltering.

MORE CORPORATIONS ARE PAYING LITTLE OR NOTHING IN TAXES

OBBBA included large tax cuts for corporations, and the administration has added on to the benefits of these tax cuts with legally doubtful regulatory changes. Many of the corporate income tax cuts in OBBBA are retroactive, reducing companies’ 2025 tax bills and resulting in more and more corporations disclosing that they had very low income tax liability, or none at all, for the year.

For example, Amazon paid just 1.4 percent of its $89 billion in U.S. profits in federal corporate income tax while Meta paid 3.6 percent on $2.8 billion in profits and Tesla and Palantir paid nothing on their combined $7.2 billion. Table 3 shows a list of prominent companies that have, as of April 1, made their annual disclosures.

These companies’ ultra-low tax bills are just the tip of the iceberg of what has been done to business taxes in the first year of President Trump’s second term. From OBBBA alone, corporations and other businesses will pay $234 billion less in 2026 and $1.7 trillion less over 10 years.

FOREIGN INVESTORS GET BIG TAX CUTS TOO

With the extensive foreign ownership of companies doing business in the U.S., foreign shareholders are significant beneficiaries of the corporate tax cuts under OBBBA. A total of $32 billion in tax savings from OBBBA will go offshore in 2026. Many foreign shareholders are likely to end up paying zero U.S. corporate tax despite benefiting from the U.S. economy and the role of the government in sustaining it.

As Figure 6 shows, foreign investors get a larger share (6 percent) of the OBBBA tax cut than the lowest income 40 percent of the American population (4.1 percent). Not living here, of course, they also do not pay the tariffs that Americans are paying. The highest income 20 percent of the U.S. population, plus foreign owners/shareholders of U.S. businesses, garner 73 percent of the total tax reductions of OBBBA.

Figure 6

Download Figure 6

THE RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN UNDERMINED

The Trump administration’s initial tariffs were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. The tariffs that have initially replaced them are also illegal.

The Trump administration has also issued regulations that have significantly cut taxes for corporations. These too were done without a proper legal basis. Unlike with tariffs and other illegal administration activity, the courts may not block lawless regulations that reduce taxes. Some case law suggests that federal courts may deny “standing,” the right to sue, to anyone who isn’t affected in a very concrete, negative way, by an illegal regulation. Regulations that cut taxes may not negatively affect anyone sufficiently directly for the courts to grant standing.

The administration also put taxpayer privacy at risk with its IRS-ICE arrangement.

Finally, when the administration isn’t itself violating the law, it is making it easier for others to do so. The drastic cuts to IRS enforcement encourage the spread of lawlessness from within the Trump administration to the taxpaying public. Those who can afford to engage in complicated, hard to detect tax evasion schemes are well-positioned to evade taxes more than ever.

CONCLUSION

The Trump-Republican tax policies of the first year of President Trump’s second term have adversely affected most Americans while benefiting the wealthy and foreign shareholders. This has been accomplished through a mix of legislative action and illegal executive actions by the administration.

Unfortunately, it could get worse. The administration is being heavily lobbied to add to its unlawful regulatory record by indexing capital gains for inflation—which would be a benefit hugely skewed to the wealthy. In addition, the congressional Republican Study Committee has a tax plan that would, likewise, be of substantial benefit to those with the highest income and wealth.

METHODOLOGY

The methodologies for the numbers in this report can be found in the methodologies in the hyperlinked reports where they were initially published. Income tax analysis is conducted using the ITEP Microsimulation Tax Model. The tariff calculations use the consumption tax module of the ITEP model calibrated to forecasts and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, UBS bank and a paper by Cavallo, Llamas and Vazquez on the 2025 tariffs. Tariffs are distributed by consumption, residential investment, shares of rising costs for state and local governments and business ownership—reflecting the direct effects on prices of consumer goods, the impact on costs associated with residential property ownership, the higher prices faced by state and local governments and the reduction in profits in the cases where businesses do not pass through the full amount of the tariffs to their customers.

ENDNOTES

· 1. OBBBA also included spending cuts and spending increases. These net $1.2 trillion, so the net increase in deficits from OBBBA is $3.4 trillion.

(See charts, graphs, tables and pix here)

ATTACHMENT TWELVE – FROM 1440

'TAXMAN'

Why the IRS is necessary

The Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, is a division of the US Treasury Department created in 1862 that enforces the Internal Revenue Code—Title 26 of the US Code, a compilation of federal statutes—and, effectively, oversees tax collection. In 2024, the IRS's roughly 75,000 employees collected roughly $5T in tax revenue.

Given its role in diverting household income streams, it also has a bad reputation. Half of Americans had an "unfavorable view" of the IRS as of 2024 (see data). In a ranking of 16 well-known federal agencies by popularity that year, the IRS came in dead last, behind both the Department of Justice and the Department of Education.

Specifically, the IRS is responsible for determining, assessing, and collecting internal revenue in the US, such as personal and corporate income taxes; excise, estate, and gift taxes; and payroll taxes for the nation's Social Security system (state governments are responsible for collecting state taxes) (read how it's organized). These taxes help pay for government spending on everything from maintaining roads to funding the military.

Also, check out ... 

> What happens when you don't pay your taxes? (Watch)

> Here are 15 red flags that could result in an audit from the IRS. (Read)

> It cost the IRS $0.36 to collect $100 in 2024. (Read)

> The story of the Beatles' "Taxman." (Read)

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN – FROM PEW RESEARCH|

TOP TAX FRUSTRATIONS FOR AMERICANS: FEELING THAT SOME WEALTHY PEOPLE, CORPORATIONS DON’T PAY FAIR SHARE

By Andy Cerda and J. Baxter Oliphant April 6, 2026

With the annual IRS filing deadline approaching, majorities of Americans continue to be bothered by the feeling that some wealthy people and corporations do not pay their fair share in federal taxes.

AMERICANS’ FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM

% WHO SAY EACH BOTHERS THEM __ ABOUT THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM

The feeling that some poor people don't pay their fairshare The amount you pay in taxes The complexity of the tax system The feeling that some corporations don't pay their fair share The feeling that some wealthy people don't paytheir fair share

Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026.

Roughly six-in-ten adults now say the feeling that some wealthy people (61%) and corporations (60%) don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot. These percentages are largely unchanged in recent years.

A Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 20-26 among 8,512 U.S. adults, also finds that:

· 51% of Americans say the complexity of the federal tax system bothers them a lot. That’s roughly on par with past years.

· 41% are bothered a lot by the amount they personally pay in taxes. That share has grown steadily over the last several years.

· Only 12% say a sense that lower-income people don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot.

ABOUT THIS RESEARCH

This Pew Research Center analysis looks at how Americans feel about the federal tax system and paying taxes.

WHY DID WE DO THIS? 

Pew Research Center does research to help the public, media and decision-makers understand important topics. We have studied Americans’ views of politics and major policy issues, including tax policy, for decades.

Learn more about Pew Research Center and our politics research.   

HOW DID WE DO THIS? 

We surveyed 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20 to 26, 2026. Everyone who took this survey is part of the Center’s American Trends Panel. The survey reflects the views of all U.S. adults. Here are our survey questions, detailed responses and methodology.

PARTISANS’ TOP FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE TAX SYSTEM DIFFER

Republicans and Democrats, including those who lean toward each party, diverge in their frustrations with the federal tax system.

DEMOCRATS’ TOP TAX FRUSTRATION IS THE FEELING THAT WEALTHY PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS DON’T PAY FAIR SHARE

% who say each of the following bothers them a lot about the federal tax system

The feeling that some wealthy people don't pay their fair share. The feeling that some corporations don't pay their fair share. The complexity of the tax system. The amount you pay in taxes. The feeling that some poor people don't pay their fair share.

Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say certain things about the tax system bother them a lot:

· The feeling that some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share (81% of Democrats vs. 41% of Republicans)

· The feeling that some corporations don’t pay their share (79% vs. 42%)

By contrast, Republicans are modestly more likely than Democrats to say other things bother them a lot:

· The amount they personally pay in taxes (47% of Republicans say this vs. 36% of Democrats)

· The feeling that some poor people don’t pay their fair share (16% vs. 8%)

About half of both Republicans (53%) and Democrats (52%) say the complexity of the tax system bothers them a lot.

GROWING SHARE OF AMERICANS SAY THEY PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES

% who say that considering what they get from the federal government, they pay __ in taxes

'19'21'23'26'19'21'23'26'19'21'23'26

Note: No answer responses are not shown.

Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026. PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Today, 60% of Americans say that the amount they pay in taxes is “more than their fair share” given what they get from the federal government. That’s up from 56% in 2023 and roughly half in 2019 and 2021.

Another 33% now say they pay about the right amount in taxes, while 5% say they pay less than their fair share.

As in past years, Republicans (66%) are more likely than Democrats (56%) to say they pay more than their fair share. But these percentages have increased in both parties over the last several years.

HOW DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS SEE THE AMOUNT THEY PAY IN TAXES

Americans from upper- and middle-income households, conservative Republicans, and those ages 30 to 64 are especially likely to say they pay more than their fair share in federal taxes.

A majority of Americans – especially those with higher incomes and Republicans – say they pay more than their fair share in taxes

% who say that considering what they get from the federal government, they pay __ in taxes

Total65+50-6430-49Ages 18-29Lower incomeMiddle incomeUpper incomeMod/LibConservRep/Lean RepLiberalCons/ModDem/Lean Dem

Note: No answer responses are not shown.

Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026. PEW RESEARCH CENTER

RESPONSES BY AGE

About two-thirds of adults ages 30 to 64 (65%) say their personal tax burden is unfairly high. Smaller shares of those ages 18 to 29 and those 65 and older say the same.

BY INCOME

Upper-income (68%) and middle-income (65%) Americans are more likely than those with lower incomes (49%) to feel their tax burden is unfair, given what they receive from the federal government. (Refer to the methodology for details on how household income tiers are determined.)

IDEOLOGY

Conservative Republicans are particularly likely to say their tax contributions are unfairly high.

About seven-in-ten conservative Republicans (69%) say they pay an unfair amount, compared with 61% of moderate and liberal Republicans, 58% of conservative and moderate Democrats, and 53% of liberal Democrats.

INCOME BY PARTY

Upper-income Republicans are more likely than other Americans to say they pay more than their fair share in taxes

% who say that considering what they get from the federal government, they pay more than their fair share in taxes

Total Upper income Middle income Lower income

Note: Family income tiers are based on adjusted 2024 earnings.

Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026.

There are wide differences by income among Republicans on this question, but smaller differences for Democrats. About eight-in-ten upper-income Republicans (79%) say they pay more than their fair share, while 70% of middle-income and 51% of lower-income Republicans say the same.

By comparison, 57% of upper-income Democrats and 60% of middle-income Democrats say they pay more than their fair share. About half of lower-income Democrats say this (49%).

As a result, there is a wide partisan gap in these views for upper-income Americans but no partisan gap among lower-income Americans.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 30, 2021. Here are our survey questions, detailed responses and methodology. (See conformed result listing at website)

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM US NEWS

ARE YOUR TAXES TOO HIGH? MOST SAY YES

By Olivier Knox April 07, 2026.

It’s tax season. And you’re not happy about it.

If a new survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center is correct, then about 60% of you say the feeling that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share bothers you “a lot.” At the other end of the spectrum, 12% say the same about the feeling some poor people don’t pay their fair share.

The proportion of Americans who say they pay more than they should, given what they get from the government, has risen to 60%. That’s up from 56% in 2023, 49% in 2021, and 51% in 2019.

(I’m not sure what was going on in 2021, but Pew’s numbers show that was a recent high-water mark – 44% – for Americans saying they were paying the right amount. It’s currently 33%.)

Dissatisfaction with taxes has been central to the American identity since before the republic was born. But whether and how this translates to politics in 2026 is tricky. Will this benefit politicians who want to cut taxes or those who want to raise them on the rich and corporations?

This year, Republicans are banking on Americans being happy with larger income tax refunds. But it’s not clear whether that will fully counter unhappiness about the high cost of living, which Democrats say will hand them victory in November’s elections.

Whichever way things shake out in seven months, anger at “the system” has certainly been a powerful force. President Barack Obama rode promises to shake things up into the Oval Office. Then so did President Donald Trump – partly thanks to Obama voters.

THE (INEVITABLE) PARTISAN SPLIT

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they pay more than they should – 66% to 56%. They’re also more likely than Democrats to say the amount they personally pay bothers them “a lot” (47% to 36%).

Democrats are also much more likely than Republicans to say the feeling that some rich folks don’t pay their fair share bothers them “a lot” – 81% to 41%. Same goes when asked about corporate tax bills – 79% to 42%.

One interesting area of agreement: Roughly half of Democrats (52%) and Republicans (53%) say the tax system’s complexity bothers them “a lot.”

More upper-income Republicans say they pay more than their fair share of taxes – 79% – than any other group. But there’s GOP variation by income level: 70% of middle-income Republicans say the same. Ditto for 51% of lower-income GOP adults.

The partisan gap virtually vanishes at the bottom end of incomes: 49% of lower-income Democrats say they pay too much.

The age cohort most likely to say they pay too much? Americans 50-64 years of age, 67% of whom agree with that notion. Least likely? Folks over 65, just 50% of whom echo that complaint.

But anyone can check out the U.S. News guide “9 Last-Minute Tax Moves You Still Have Time to Make.” Hurry, though!

Opinion: AI Poses Risk to Health Coverage

When efficiency algorithms govern life-or-death approvals, seniors lose the very access Medicare was created to provide.

– Nitya Thummalachetty and Pramod Pinnamaneni

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM TAX FOUNDATION.ORG

TRACKING THE IMPACT OF THE TRUMP TARIFFS & TRADE WAR

By: Erica York, Alex Durante 3/13/26

IMPACT OF TRUMP TARIFFS BY THE NUMBERS

President Trump's Imposed and Threatened Tariffs, Topline Preliminary Estimates

Table with 5 columns and 1 rows. (column headers with buttons are sortable)
Average Tax Increase per US Household in 2026	10-Year Conventional Revenue, 2026-2035 (Billions)	Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	Capital Stock	Hours Worked Converted to Full-Time Equivalent Jobs
$600	$661.8	−0.2%	−0.1%	-154,000

Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, February 2026

Embed Download image Get the data

Key Findings

· In 2025, the Trump tariffs amounted to an average tax increase of $1,000 per US household. We estimate the new tariffs currently imposed in 2026 will increase taxes per US household by $600.

· President Trump imposed tariffs on nearly all trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and on several sectors using Section 232. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, leaving only the new Section 232 tariffs in place. Trump responded by imposing a 10 percent tariff on nearly all countries under Section 122, effective February 24, 2026, applying to an estimated $1.2 trillion (34 percent) of annual imports. The Section 122 tariff is scheduled to expire after 150 days, and several new Section 301 investigations are ongoing.

· The IEEPA ruling reduced the weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports from 13.8 percent to 6.7 percent in 2026 under the remaining Section 232 tariffs. While the 10 percent Section 122 tariffs are in effect, we estimate this rises to 10.3 percent.

· The average effective tariff rate was 7.7 percent in 2025—the highest since 1947. If the 10 percent Section 122 tariffs expire on schedule, we estimate the average effective tariff rate will be 5.6 percent in 2026, the highest since 1972.

· We estimate that the remaining Section 232 and Section 122 tariffs will raise $662 billion in revenue from 2026-2035 on a conventional basis. The permanent Section 232 tariffs will reduce long-run US GDP by 0.2 percent before foreign retaliation. Accounting for negative economic effects, the revenue raised by the tariffs falls to $517 billion over the decade. We estimate that the Section 232 tariffs raised $36 billion in net tax revenue in 2025.

· The tariffs have not meaningfully altered the trade balance, which fell by only $2.1 billion in 2025, driven by an increase in the trade surplus of services.

AVERAGE TARIFF RATES

The new tariffs will significantly raise the tariff rates the US applies to most imports. The weighted average tariff rate measures the statutory tax rate that applies to US imports. It differs from the average effective tariff rate that measures actual customs duties collections as a share of actual goods imports.

According to the World Bank, the weighted average applied tariff was 1.5 percent in 2022. Prior to the IEEPA ruling, we estimate US imports faced a weighted-average applied tariff rate of 13.8 percent. While the 10 percent Section 122 tariffs are in effect, we estimate the applied rate will be 10.2 percent (at 15 percent, it would be 12.1 percent), and that it will fall to 6.7 percent after the Section 122 tariffs expire.

TRUMP'S TARIFFS DRAMATICALLY RAISE APPLIED TARIFF RATES

Trade-Weighted Average Applied Tariff Rate in 2022 and Tax Foundation Estimates of Applied Tariff Rates Under Trump's Proposals

5.010.0%

1.5%

13.8%

10.3%

12.1%

6.7%

WEIGHTED-AVERAGE APPLIED TARIFF RATE IN 2022

Total with IEEPA, 2026

Total with Section 122 of 10% for 150 days, 2026

Total with Section 122 of 15% for 150 days, 2026

Total After Section 122 Expires

Note: The weighted average applied tariff rate measures the statutory tax rate imposed on different products from different countries, and it differs from average effective rates measured by actual tariff revenues as a share of total goods imports.

Source: World Development Indicators and Tax Foundation calculations.

Embed Download imageGet the data

We estimate the average effective tariff rate by taking tariff revenues as a share of total goods imports. In 2025, before the Supreme Court ruled the IEEPA tariffs illegal, the actual average effective tariff rate rose from 2.4 percent in 2024 to 7.7 percent, the highest since 1947. If the 10 percent Section 122 tariffs end after 150 days, we estimate the average effective tariff rate for 2026 will be 5.6 percent—the highest since 1972. (At 15 percent, it would be 6.0 percent and the highest since 1971.)

TRUMP'S TARIFFS HAVE DRAMATICALLY RAISED EFFECTIVE TARIFF RATES

Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports in 2024 and 2025, Tax Foundation Estimates of Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports Under Trump's Proposals

2.04.06.0%

2.5%

7.7%

5.6%

6.0%

Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports, 2024

Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports, 2025

Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports, 2026, with 10% Section 122

Average Effective Tariff Rate on All Goods Imports, 2026, with 15% Section 122

Note: We estimate the average effective tariff rate by taking tariff revenues as a share of total goods imports.

Source: Tax Foundation calculations.

Embed Download image Get the data

TARIFF REVENUE COLLECTIONS

In calendar year 2025, customs duties raised $264 billion for the federal government, compared to $79 billion in calendar year 2024. Total customs duties revenues include pre-existing tariffs, such as those President Trump imposed in his first term. With the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the revenue collected by the government related to those tariffs will have to be refunded. The total revenue raised by tariffs will be less than the direct collections, because tariffs mechanically reduce the bases of income and payroll taxes. We estimate the government netted $36 billion from the new Section 232 tariffs in 2025.

THE BALANCE OF TRADE

One of President Trump’s stated goals of imposing tariffs is to shrink the US trade deficit. However, a country’s balance of trade is not solely driven by trade policy, but instead, reflects broader macroeconomic balances between saving and investment and net lending and borrowing with the rest of the world.

In the United States, domestic investment outpaces domestic saving, requiring a capital inflow from the rest of the world to close the gap. The capital inflow represents net lending to the United States from the rest of the world to finance business investment as well as the government’s budget deficit. Because tariffs do not directly change the balance between domestic saving and investment, tariffs cannot permanently change the trade balance.

The last time the United States ran a trade surplus was in 1975; every year since, the United States has run a trade deficit. That the United States has consistently run trade deficits for decades is not an imminent economic problem. Net imports, another term for a trade deficit, can reflect the strength of the US economy in attracting foreign investment and in serving as a safe, reliable haven for foreign capital. When net imports finance the capital stock, it allows the US to enjoy a higher level of productivity and growth than otherwise would occur.

In 2025, the trade deficit fell by just $2.1 billion compared to 2024. The reduction in the trade deficit was due to an increase in the trade surplus of services, as the goods deficit actually increased by $25.5 billion year over year.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Our estimates below separate the effects of the IEEPA tariffs (ruled unlawful) from other tariffs. See the Appendix for a detailed explanation of the modeled provisions.

Because the Section 122 tariff expires after 150 days, it would have no long-run economic impact. We estimate that before accounting for any foreign retaliation, the Section 232 tariffs will reduce long-run US GDP by 0.2 percent. The IEEPA tariffs, including the scheduled “reciprocal” tariffs, would have reduced long-run GDP by an additional 0.3 percent.

As of September 1, 2025, threatened and imposed retaliatory tariffs affect $223 billion of US exports based on 2024 US import values; if fully imposed, we estimate they will reduce long-run US GDP by 0.2 percent.

Table 1. Estimated Economic Impact of 2025 Trump Tariffs

	Long-Run GDP	Capital Stock	Pre-Tax Wages	Hours Worked Converted to Full-Time Equivalent Jobs
Section 232 Tariffs				-0.2%	-0.1%	0.0%	-154,000
Section 232 Steel and Aluminum				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-27,000
Section 232 Autos and Auto Parts				-0.1%	-0.1%	0.0%	-98,000
Section 232 Furniture, Kithcen Cabinets and Vanities, Lumber				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-3,000
Section 232 Heavy Trucks and Parts				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-23,000
IEEPA Tariffs, Total				-0.4%	-0.3%	0.0%	-282,000
IEEPA Fentanyl China				-0.1%	-0.1%	0.0%	-59,000
IEEPA Mexico				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-12,000
IEEPA Canada				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-15,000
IEEPA 10% Baseline Tariff Excluding Canada and Mexico				-0.2%	-0.1%	0.0%	-142,000
IEEPA "Reciprocal" Tariff Increases (ROW)				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-27,000
Ending De Minimis				Less than -0.05%	Less than -0.05%	0.0%	-27,000
Imposed Retaliation				-0.2%	-0.1%	0.0%	-141,000

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, February 2026

REVENUE IMPACTS

If imposed on a permanent basis, the tariffs will increase tax revenue for the federal government. We model the imposed tariffs together, accounting for interactions between the different rounds of tariffs and timing of implementation. Additionally, we account for income and payroll tax offsets, as tariffs mechanically reduce those tax bases. For this reason, the total tax revenue raised on net will be less than the tariff revenue reported by Treasury. Revenue is even lower on a dynamic basis, a reflection of the negative effect tariffs have on US economic output, reducing incomes and resulting tax revenues. Revenue would fall more when factoring in foreign retaliation, as retaliation would cause US output and incomes to shrink further.

On a conventional basis, before incorporating negative economic effects, we estimate that the Section 232 tariffs will increase US federal tax revenue by $635 billion from 2026 through 2035. The temporary 10 percent Section 122 tariffs will raise $27 billion in 2026 ($35 billion if 15 percent), replacing about 52 percent (or nearly 70 percent, if levied at 15 percent) of the revenue raised by IEEPA over 150 days. The IEEPA tariffs would have raised an additional $1.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade. The IEEPA tariffs raised less in 2025 because they were not in effect for the full year.

On a dynamic basis, incorporating the negative effects of the US-imposed tariffs on the US economy, we estimate that the Section 232 and temporary Section 122 tariffs will raise $517 billion from 2026 through 2035, about $145 billion less than the conventional estimate. The IEEPA tariffs would have raised an additional $1.1 trillion over the next decade, about $264 billion less than the conventional estimate. Incorporating the negative effects of imposed retaliatory tariffs as of September 1, 2025, further reduces 10-year revenue by $136 billion.

Table 2. Conventional Revenue Effects of 2025 Trump Tariffs 

Calendar Year	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2026-2035
Section 232 Tariffs	$36.0	$53.8	$55.7	$57.7	$59.5	$61.7	$64.2	$66.7	$69.4	$71.9	$74.4	$634.9
Section 232 Steel and Aluminum	$8.5	$9.7	$10.0	$10.4	$10.7	$11.1	$11.6	$12.0	$12.5	$13.0	$13.4	$114.4
Section 232 Autos and Auto Parts	$25.8	$34.8	$35.9	$37.2	$38.4	$39.8	$41.4	$43.0	$44.7	$46.4	$48.0	$409.6
Section 232 Copper	$0.3	$0.7	$0.7	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.9	$0.9	$0.9	$1.0	$1.0	$8.5
Section 232 Furniture, Kithcen Cabinets and Vanities, Lumber	$0.2	$1.2	$1.3	$1.3	$1.4	$1.4	$1.5	$1.5	$1.6	$1.7	$1.7	$14.5
Section 232 Heavy Trucks and Parts	$1.2	$7.5	$7.7	$8.0	$8.2	$8.5	$8.9	$9.2	$9.6	$9.9	$10.3	$87.8
Section 122 Tariff (10%)	$0.0	$26.9	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$26.9
Section 122 Tariff (15%)	$0.0	$35.4	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$35.4
Total	$36.0	$87.0	$55.7	$57.7	$59.5	$61.7	$64.2	$66.7	$69.4	$71.9	$74.4	$668.1
IEEPA Tariffs	$95.8	$117.3	$120.7	$125.0	$129.1	$133.7	$139.1	$144.6	$150.4	$155.7	$161.0	$1,376.7
IEEPA Fentanyl China	$28.0	$24.2	$25.0	$25.9	$26.7	$27.7	$28.8	$29.9	$31.1	$32.3	$33.4	$285.0
IEEPA Mexico	$2.6	$3.6	$3.7	$3.8	$3.9	$4.1	$4.2	$4.4	$4.6	$4.7	$4.9	$41.9
IEEPA Canada	$2.8	$4.0	$4.1	$4.3	$4.4	$4.6	$4.8	$5.0	$5.1	$5.3	$5.5	$47.1
IEEPA 10% Baseline Tariff Excluding Canada and Mexico	$47.6	$60.9	$62.9	$65.1	$67.3	$69.6	$72.5	$75.3	$78.3	$81.2	$84.1	$717.3
IEEPA "Reciprocal" Tariff Increases (ROW)	$9.3	$18.4	$18.6	$19.3	$19.9	$20.6	$21.4	$22.3	$23.2	$24.0	$24.9	$212.5
Ending De Minimis	$5.6	$6.3	$6.4	$6.7	$6.9	$7.2	$7.4	$7.7	$8.0	$8.1	$8.2	$72.9
Total Conventional Revenue	$131.8	$175.1	$180.8	$187.3	$193.4	$200.3	$208.4	$216.7	$225.3	$233.3	$241.4	$2,061.7

Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, March 2026

Table 3. Dynamic Revenue Effects of President Trump’s Tariffs 

Calendar Year	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2026-2035
Section 232 Tariffs	$23.2	$42.8	$43.6	$45.3	$46.0	$47.7	$49.5	$50.9	$53.1	$54.9	$55.9	$489.6
Section 232 Steel and Aluminum	$6.2	$7.3	$7.4	$7.9	$8.1	$8.4	$8.8	$8.9	$9.5	$9.7	$9.8	$85.7
Section 232 Autos and Auto Parts	$17.1	$28.2	$28.5	$29.2	$29.7	$30.7	$31.8	$32.8	$34.0	$35.1	$35.9	$315.9
Section 232 Copper	$0.3	$0.7	$0.7	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.9	$0.9	$0.9	$1.0	$1.0	$8.5
Section 232 Furniture, Kithcen Cabinets and Vanities, Lumber	$0.2	$1.1	$1.3	$1.3	$1.4	$1.4	$1.5	$1.5	$1.6	$1.7	$1.7	$14.4
Section 232 Heavy Trucks and Parts	-$0.6	$5.5	$5.7	$6.0	$6.1	$6.4	$6.6	$6.8	$7.1	$7.4	$7.5	$65.0
Section 122 Tariff (10%)	$0.0	$26.9	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$26.9
Section 122 Tariff (15%)	$0.0	$35.4	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	$35.4
Total	$23.2	$76.0	$43.6	$45.3	$46.0	$47.7	$49.5	$50.9	$53.1	$54.9	$55.9	$522.8
IEEPA Tariffs	$72.0	$93.9	$95.7	$99.7	$101.9	$106.1	$110.3	$113.7	$118.7	$122.4	$125.1	$1,087.5
IEEPA Fentanyl China	$23.1	$19.0	$19.6	$20.5	$20.9	$22.0	$22.7	$23.4	$24.5	$25.4	$25.9	$224.0
IEEPA Mexico	$1.9	$2.8	$2.9	$3.0	$3.0	$3.1	$3.2	$3.2	$3.3	$3.5	$3.5	$31.6
IEEPA Canada	$1.9	$3.1	$3.1	$3.2	$3.2	$3.3	$3.4	$3.5	$3.6	$3.7	$3.8	$33.8
IEEPA 10% Baseline Tariff Excluding Canada and Mexico	$35.4	$47.9	$49.2	$51.1	$52.5	$54.7	$56.9	$59.1	$61.6	$63.7	$65.5	$562.3
IEEPA "Reciprocal" Tariff Increases (ROW)	$6.4	$16.6	$16.6	$17.2	$17.6	$18.2	$19.0	$19.5	$20.4	$21.0	$21.5	$187.7
Ending De Minimis	$3.2	$4.5	$4.4	$4.6	$4.6	$4.8	$5.0	$5.0	$5.3	$5.1	$4.8	$48.2
Retaliation	-$8.6	-$9.6	-$10.8	-$11.6	-$12.5	-$13.2	-$14.0	-$14.9	-$15.6	-$16.4	-$17.4	-$136.0

Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, March 2026

In 2026, the Trump tariffs including IEEPA would have increased federal tax revenues by $171.1 billion, or 0.54 percent of GDP, making the tariffs the largest tax hike since 1993. With the IEEPA tariff being ruled illegal, we estimate that the Section 232 tariffs and 10 percent Section 122 tariffs will increase federal tax revenues by $81 billion in 2026, or 0.26 percent of GDP, ranking as the 20^th largest tax increase since 1940. (At 15 percent, the combined new tariffs would raise $89 billion in 2026, or 0.28 percent of GDP, and rank as the 18^th largest tax increase since 1940.)

Trump's 2025 Tariffs Were the Largest Tax Hike Since 1993

Average Annual Revenue Change as a Share of GDP Across Major Tax Laws and Trump's Proposed Tariffs, Yellow Bars Indicate War-Related Tax Laws

Revenue Act of 1942*^

5.04%

Revenue Act of 1941*^

2.20%

Revenue Act of 1951*^

1.52%

Revenue Act of 1950*^

1.33%

Current Tax Payment Act of 1943*^

1.16%

Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968*

1.10%

TEFRA of 1982

0.98%

Excess Profits Tax of 1950*^

0.97%

Revenue Act of 1940*^

0.91%

Second Revenue Act of 1940*

0.71%

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

0.63%

Tax Adjustment Act of 1966

0.60%

President Trump's 2025 Tariffs Before SCOTUS Ruling

0.54%

Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980

0.51%

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

0.50%

Revenue Act of 1943*^

0.40%

Affordable Health Care Act of 2010

0.40%

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

0.35%

President Trump's 2026 Tariffs

0.26%

Note: * Tax bills were fully or partially used to fund war efforts in World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. ^ The "full-year effect" for the first year of revenue was used, rather than the effect on the first fiscal year after enactment.

Source: Jerry Tempalski, “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills”; Congressional Budget Office, “Revenue Projections, by Category”; Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model; Author calculations.

Chart: Erica York Embed Download image Get the data

DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS

In 2026, the tariffs will reduce after-tax incomes for all income groups. The top 1 percent will see a smaller reduction in after-tax income compared to others. Per US household, the tariffs altogether will amount to an average tax increase of $1,000 in 2025 and would have been a $1,300 average tax increase in 2026. However, with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the tax increases will be smaller at $400 in 2026 for the Section 232 tariffs. The 10 percent Section 122 tariffs would increase the tax burden to $600.

These averages do not capture additional costs from higher-priced alternatives and reduced consumer choice.

Table 4. Distributional Effects of 2025 Trump Tariffs

	Percent Change in After-Tax Income under Imposed Tariffs, 2026			Nominal Tax Change, 2026
Market Income Percentile	Section 232 Tariffs	IEEPA Tariffs	Section 122 Tariff	Section 232 Tariffs	IEEPA Tariffs	Section 122 Tariff
0% - 20.0%	-0.3%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$36	$79	$18
20.0% - 40.0%	-0.3%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$99	$215	$49
40.0% - 60.0%	-0.4%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$192	$418	$96
60.0% - 80.0%	-0.3%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$339	$740	$170
80.0% - 100%	-0.3%	-0.7%	-0.2%	$927	$2,019	$464
80.0% - 90.0%	-0.4%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$540	$1,177	$270
90.0% - 95.0%	-0.4%	-0.8%	-0.2%	$756	$1,647	$378
95.0% - 99.0%	-0.3%	-0.7%	-0.2%	$1,258	$2,742	$630
99.0% - 99.9%	-0.3%	-0.7%	-0.2%	$3,014	$6,566	$1,508
99.9% - 100%	-0.2%	-0.5%	-0.1%	$15,987	$34,830	$7,997
Total	-0.3%	-0.8%

Note: Market income includes adjusted gross income (AGI) plus 1) tax-exempt interest, 2) non-taxable Social Security income, 3) the employer share of payroll taxes, 4) imputed corporate tax liability, 5) employer-sponsored health insurance and other fringe benefits, 6) taxpayers’ imputed contributions to defined-contribution pension plans. Market income levels are adjusted for the number of exemptions reported on each return to make tax units more comparable. After-tax income is market income less: individual income tax, corporate income tax, payroll taxes, estate and gift tax, custom duties, and excise taxes. The 2026 income break points by percentile are: 20%-$17,735; 40%-$38,572; 60%-$73,905; 80%-$130,661; 90%-$188,849; 95%-$266,968; 99%-$611,194. Tax units with negative market income and non-filers are excluded from the percentile groups but included in the totals.
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, February 2026

ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN – FROM TELEGRAPH UK

ALL THE TAX CHANGES AND PRICE RISES COMING IN APRIL

By Lauren Davidson Executive Money Editor

It’s April 1 next week, but this is no joking matter. The new month brings with it a cacophony of financial changes that only a fool would ignore.
First, the good news: the typical household’s energy bills will fall by seven per cent, or £117 a year, from Wednesday due to the reduction in the energy price cap. However, this drop is likely to be short-lived. Oil price shocks from the Iran war are predicted to push the cap from £1,641 to £1,801 in July. Shop around for a cheaper fixed-term deal and lock in before the summer.
Elsewhere, most costs are going up from April. Most council tax bills will rise by 4.9 per cent, which is £111 for an average Band D house. Use our calculator to see how much more you’ll pay. Also going up next week are water bills, car taxes, mobile phone and broadband prices and the cost of a TV licence.
Hot on the heels of price rise day comes the start of the new tax year on April 6, which will also leave most people lighter of pocket. Farms, family businesses and Aim-listed shares will incur more inheritance tax, dividend taxes will rise by two pence in the pound and the dreaded Making Tax Digital finally arrives for sole traders and landlords with more than £50,000 of income (find the best software to use here).
Fret not, for you still have time to act to protect your money. Don’t miss out on the essential tips in these guides.

ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN – FROM WORLD POPULATION REVIEW

FIVE COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATE

Finland

57.65%

Japan

55.95%

Denmark

55.9%

Austria

55%

Sweden

52%

TAXATION BY INCOME, SALES (CONSUMPTION) AND CORPORATE IN 2025 (Highest to Lowest)

COUNTRY	PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATE	SALES TAX RATE	CORPORATE TAX RATE
Finland	57.65%	25.5%	20%
Japan	55.95%	10%	30.62%
Denmark	55.9%	25%	22%
Austria	55%	20%	23%
Sweden	52%	25%	20.6%
Aruba	52%	4%	22%
Belgium	50%	21%	25%
Israel	50%	17%	23%
Slovenia	50%	22%	22%
Netherlands	49.5%	21%	25.8%
Portugal	48%	23%	21%
Norway	47.4%	25%	22%
Spain	47%	21%	25%
Iceland	46.28%	24%	21%
China	45%	13%	25%
Germany	45%	19%	30%
United Kingdom	45%	20%	25%
France	45%	20%	25%
South Africa	45%	15%	27%
South Korea	45%	10%	24%
Australia	45%	10%	30%
Greece	44%	24%	22%
Italy	43%	22%	24%
Senegal	43%	18%	30%
Papua New Guinea	42%	10%	30%
Luxembourg	42%	17%	23.87%
Zimbabwe	41.2%	15%	24.72%
DR Congo	40%	16%	30%
Turkey	40%	20%	25%
Uganda	40%	18%	30%
Taiwan	40%	5%	20%
Chile	40%	19%	27%
Guinea	40%	18%	30%
Republic of the Congo	40%	18.9%	28%
Mauritania	40%	16%	25%
Ireland	40%	23%	12.5%
India	39%	18%	34.94%
Colombia	39%	19%	35%
New Zealand	39%	15%	28%
Cameroon	38.5%	19.25%	33%
Morocco	38%	20%	33%
Suriname	38%	10%	36%
United States	37%		21%
Zambia	37%	16%	30%
Ecuador	37%	15%	25%
Namibia	37%	15%	31%
Uruguay	36%	22%	25%
Indonesia	35%	12%	22%
Pakistan	35%	18%	29%
Ethiopia	35%	15%	30%
Mexico	35%	16%	30%
Philippines	35%	12%	25%
Vietnam	35%	10%	20%
Thailand	35%	7%	20%
Algeria	35%	19%	26%
Argentina	35%	17%	35%
Malawi	35%	16.5%	30%
Tunisia	35%	19%	15%
Gabon	35%	18%	30%
Equatorial Guinea	35%	15%	35%
Cyprus	35%	19%	12.5%
Malta	35%	18%	35%
Venezuela	34%	16%	34%
Canada	33%	5%	26.5%
Switzerland	33%	8.1%	14.6%
Puerto Rico	33%		37.5%
Latvia	33%	21%	20%
Eswatini	33%
Poland	32%	23%	19%
Mozambique	32%	16%	32%
Tanzania	30%	18%	30%
Kenya	30%	16%	30%
Malaysia	30%	10%	24%
Ghana	30%	15%	25%
Peru	30%	18%	29.5%
Chad	30%	18%	35%
Rwanda	30%	18%	28%
Jordan	30%	18%	20%
Nicaragua	30%	15%	30%
El Salvador	30%	13%	30%
Croatia	30%	25%	18%
Jamaica	30%	15%	25%
Lesotho	30%	15%	25%
Barbados	28.5%	17.5%	5.5%
Brazil	27.5%	17%	34%
Egypt	27.5%	14%	22.5%
Samoa	27%	15%	27%
Bangladesh	25%	15%	27.5%
Myanmar	25%	5%	22%
Angola	25%	14%	25%
Dominican Republic	25%	18%	27%
Honduras	25%	15%	25%
Azerbaijan	25%	18%	20%
Laos	25%	10%	20%
Lebanon	25%	11%	17%
Slovakia	25%	20%	24%
Costa Rica	25%	13%	30%
Panama	25%	7%	25%
Gambia	25%	15%	27%
Botswana	25%	14%	22%
Trinidad and Tobago	25%	12.5%	30%
Nigeria	24%	7.5%	30%
Singapore	24%	9%	17%
Czechia	23%	21%	21%
Albania	23%	20%	15%
Liechtenstein	22.4%	8.1%	12.5%
Syria	22%		28%
Afghanistan	20%	10%	20%
Madagascar	20%	20%	20%
Cambodia	20%	10%	20%
Georgia	20%	18%	15%
Mongolia	20%	10%	25%
Armenia	20%	21%	18%
Lithuania	20%	21%	16%
Estonia	20%	22%	20%
Mauritius	20%	15%	15%
Fiji	20%	15%	25%
Isle of Man	20%	20%
Ukraine	18%	20%	15%
Sri Lanka	18%	18%	30%
Sudan	15%	17%	35%
Iraq	15%		15%
Hungary	15%	27%	9%
Sierra Leone	15%	15%	25%
Hong Kong	15%		16.5%
Montenegro	15%	21%	15%
Seychelles	15%	15%	33%
Russia	13%	20%	25%
Bolivia	13%	13%	25%
Belarus	13%	20%	20%
Uzbekistan	12%	12%	15%
Tajikistan	12%	14%
Moldova	12%	20%	12%
Macau	12%		12%
Kazakhstan	10%	12%	20%
Romania	10%	19%	16%
Libya	10%		24%
Bulgaria	10%	20%	10%
Serbia	10%	20%	15%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	10%	17%	10%
Guatemala	7%	15%	25%
Iran		9%
Saudi Arabia		15%	20%
Ivory Coast		18%	25%
Nepal		13%
Niger		19%
Mali		18%
Burkina Faso		18%	27.5%
Somalia		5%
Benin		18%	30%
Burundi		18%
Haiti		10%
United Arab Emirates		5%	9%
Kyrgyzstan		12%
Oman		5%	15%
Kuwait			15%
Qatar			10%
Bahrain		10%
Solomon Islands		10%	30%
Guyana		14%
Bhutan		50%
Cape Verde		15%
Brunei			18.5%
Belize		12.5%
Bahamas		12%
Saint Lucia		15%
Micronesia		5%	21%

ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN – FROM AMERICANS for TAX FAIRNESS

THIS TAX DAY ARIZONA’S BILLIONAIRES ARE GROWING EVEN RICHER IN WAKE OF 2025 TRUMP-GOP TAX GIVEAWAYS

State Billionaires Are Worth 15% More Since Trump Was Reelected

April 13, 2026

This Tax Day 2026, after a year of fiscal policies enacted by President Trump and his Republican Congress that reward the wealthy, Arizona’s billionaires are flying high while the state’s workers and families struggle to afford the basics. In just the 16 months since Trump was reelected, the collective fortune of Arizona’s 15 billionaires has grown by $9.1 billion, or 14.7%, according to a new report released today by Opportunity Arizona and Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF). (See URL for individuals)

Source: Americans for Tax Fairness

“Trump’s tariffs and tax cuts for the billionaire class have raised grocery costs and made health insurance unattainable for hardworking Arizonans,” said Ben Scheel of Opportunity Arizona. “With nearly half of Arizona’s SNAP recipients losing access, the effects of OBBBA are devastating. Families everywhere can’t afford food or healthcare while an Arizona-failed sports team owner and predatory lending billionaire got $9 billion RICHER in just one year. Trump and Republicans in Arizona continue to enrich themselves and the billionaire class at the same time Americans are forced to choose whether to pay rent or get their medications. Hardworking Arizonans are fed up and will hold leaders accountable for responding to the affordability crisis.”

“The return of Donald Trump has been a boom for billionaires but a bust for average workers and families,” said David Kass, ATF’s executive director. “Republican policies, like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), keep giving more to those who already have a lot while taking from those with too little to spare. America will continue to struggle with an affordability crisis until we finally pull the plug on GOP trickle-down economics and start demanding the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. That’s the only way we can build an economy that helps workers and families deal with the affordability crisis.”

Last July, Trump and fellow Republicans enacted, H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a massive tax-and-spending law that, including added interest on the debt, will cost more than $4 trillion over the next decade. The bulk of that expense comes from $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. The highest-income 20% of American households will receive 70% of the tax cuts in 2026, and the top 1%–those with incomes of roughly a million dollars or more–will receive $1 trillion over the next decade. If temporary components of the law are eventually made permanent, the total cost would increase to $5.5 trillion. 

Those tax cuts were partially paid for through cuts to vital human services. Around 15 million people will likely lose healthcare over the next eight years because of cuts to Medicaid and the failure of the law to extend enhanced premium tax credits to buy coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Some four million people will lose nutrition assistance or see their benefits substantially reduced. As of December 2025, Protect Our Care had counted 600 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes that had closed or were in danger of closing because of the healthcare cuts in the Republican law.  

Meanwhile all through the past year, Trump has unilaterally imposed a dizzying array of tariffs on imports from around the world. Carefully crafted tariffs can be one tool for protecting domestic industries and jobs. But Trump’s scattershot approach, targeting both friendly and unfriendly trading partners, has the main impact of raising costs for American families. (Even after the Supreme Court found the basis of many of Trump’s original tariffs unconstitutional, Trump reinstated much of his tariff regime under a different authority.)

The combination of tax and service cuts plus Trump’s tariffs will saddle the lowest-income 80% of Arizona residents–four out of five people–with an average of $704 in higher costs this year, according to an ATF analysis of data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). The same analysis shows the highest-income 1% will each enjoy on average a cumulative savings of $8,768. 

TRUMP-GOP FISCAL POLICIES: Those Helped and Those Harmed

This Tax Day, as Americans settle up with the IRS, there’s another calculation to be made, one that identifies the winners and losers from Trump-GOP fiscal policies. Republican choices on taxes, spending and tariffs over the past year have benefited rich households and big corporations while making life less affordable for everyone else. Only bold, comprehensive tax reform can reverse this outcome by ensuring the rich and corporations contribute a fairer share to our national prosperity; while restoring, expanding and improving public services the rest of us rely on to get by and get ahead. 

HELPED: Rich Members of Congress

Members of Congress are among the few Americans who can help set their own tax rules. Through their votes, senators and representatives can help lower or raise rates, open or close loopholes, initiate or end special breaks. The wealthier a member of Congress is and the more income he has the greater his personal interest in crafting the tax code. 

NOTE: Congressional financial disclosure reports list assets and income in ranges rather than specific amounts. The analysis here is generally based on the upper-range figures. Also, descriptions of assets and income are not standardized across reports so the conclusions drawn here are based on the best possible interpretation of the data. See methodology here. 

AZ REP. JUAN CISCOMANI

Last summer, Arizona Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani voted for the Trump-GOP tax-and-spending plan, which heavily favored the rich.

One part of the law Ciscomani helped enact offers a special tax break to the owners of non-corporate businesses. These entities–known as “pass-throughs”–pay no tax on their own account. Instead, profits and losses are passed through to the owners, who pay any tax due on their personal returns at individual rates. The provision allows owners of such businesses to subtract 20% of their share of the profits before figuring their taxes. 

Ciscomani’s most recent congressional financial disclosure report lists an S corporation that may qualify for pass-through status.

Other, rich members of Congress who may have benefited from the law they voted for include: 

MEMBER  OF CONGRESS	ESTIMATED NET WORTH (3/20/26)	POTENTIAL ESTATE TAX SAVINGS (if applied in 2026)	POSSIBLE PASS-THROUGH TAX SAVINGS
Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV)	$664 million	$6 million	$3.7 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)	$262 million	$6 million	$962,000
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)	$67 million	$6 million	$148,000
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL)	$513 million	$6 million	$50,000

Source: Americans for Tax Fairness

HELPED: Big Corporations

Even though the main focus of the 2025 Trump-GOP tax-and-spending bill was the permanent extension of individual tax cuts that were scheduled to expire–cuts that heavily favored the wealthy–big corporations also received costly tax handouts. 

BONUS DEPRECIATION 

According to standard accounting rules, the cost of long-lasting equipment such as machinery and vehicles purchased by a business is supposed to be deducted in equal pieces over time to reflect the slow loss of value. But the new law instead lets firms deduct the full cost of big-ticket purchases in the year acquired. This huge break for business will cost $363 billion in lost revenue over the next decade. The revenue loss from this one tax break is almost double the amount cut from food assistance in the Republican law, a cut that imperils the nutritional health of some four million people. 

Huge corporations are among the biggest beneficiaries of this tax loophole. Amazon cut its tax bill by $6.5 billion last year alone thanks to bonus depreciation, Meta (Facebook) by $4.9 billion, and Alphabet (Google) by $3.3 billion. 

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION EXPENSING

For the last several years, companies have been required to deduct over time (amortize) the cost of research and experimentation. This reflects the long-term benefits of much research. The new law allows firms to instead write off the full cost of research in the year incurred. This loophole will lose $141 billion in public revenue over the next decade. That’s nearly enough money to have avoided the cuts to nutritional assistance noted above. 

Meta alone last year avoided $12.6 billion in taxes because of R&E expensing. 

LOOSER INTEREST DEDUCTION RULE

Big companies are allowed to deduct interest when figuring their taxes, though only to the extent it does not exceed 30% of their income. But there are different ways of defining income. For the past few years, firms had been required to use a stricter version of income, one that resulted in a smaller number and therefore a tighter restriction on the interest deduction. The new Republican law changed the income definition to create a bigger number and therefore larger deductions. 

Among the biggest beneficiaries of the looser interest-deduction rule are private equity firms. Private equity uses large pools of money invested by rich individuals and other entities to buy up companies, often harshly cut costs, then resell them at a hoped-for profit. 

HARMED: Prototypes of Individual Suffering

Many individual victors of the Trump-GOP fiscal system are easy to spot because they’re rich, famous and powerful. In contrast, the suffering of individual victims of those same Republican policies generally occurs out of the public eye. To address this discrepancy, the Progressive Caucus Action Fund (PCAF) has developed prototype profiles of the kind of individuals and families left worse off by the big GOP tax-and-spending bill enacted last year. 

Among these proxies for real victims is a 45-year-old waitress named Angela, single mom to two daughters. It’s explained that she makes too little money to benefit from the “no tax on tips” feature of the GOP law; but that her elder daughter, Michelle, will face higher student loan costs because of a repayment option cancelled by the law. Michelle will also be kicked off of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) because she can’t piece together enough working hours. 

Another prototype is a refugee couple who entered the country legally from Sudan. Because they are not yet Legal Permanent Residents, the GOP law is denying them access to SNAP, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), even though they have a young daughter who needs complex medical care.  Though both parents work long hours, the new law is also disqualifying them from receiving the Child Tax Credit.

There’s also a 27-year-old electrical engineer who lost her solar-power job because the Republican law rescinded clean-energy funding. With her loss of income, she will be unable to afford her health insurance without the enhanced premium tax credits the GOP law failed to extend. She will also owe thousands of dollars more on her student loans. 

A couple in their 40s pictured in the real-life small town of Forks, WA, represents the hardships the law has created for rural communities. Because of cuts to Medicaid, the local hospital may close, leaving town residents with a more than hour long drive to the nearest facility. The husband’s mother may also lose her Medicaid coverage because of complicated red-tape requirements created by the GOP law. Their son’s asthma will be worsened by diesel school buses that could have been replaced by electric vehicles if the law had not gutted environmental programs. 

ATTACHMENT NINETEEN – FROM FOX BUSINESS

RED & BLUE DIVIDE: STATES PUSH COMPETING TAX PLANS AS VOTERS WEIGH CHANGES IN ELECTION CYCLE

Expert warns the proposals may be 'counterproductive' as wealthy residents have 'other places to go'

Lawmakers push aggressive tax hikes on wealthy as critics warn of economic fallout

FOX Business’ Gerri Willis joins 'Varney & Co.' to report on the growing red vs. blue state divide over taxes, as new wealth levies target billionaires, property tax revolts spread nationwide and a wave of income tax cuts reshapes the economy.

By Arabella Bennett Published April 13, 2026 2:21pm EDT

A wave of aggressive tax proposals is hitting voters this election cycle, as states push sharply different plans that could reshape how governments raise revenue. From efforts targeting high-net-worth individuals to proposals aimed at eliminating major taxes altogether, the growing divide is forcing voters to weigh competing visions of fiscal policy.

JOSH ALTMAN SOUNDS ALARM ON CALIFORNIA WEALTH TAX, SAYS WORKERS WOULD PAY THE PRICE

FOX Business’ Gerri Willis joined Stuart Varney on "Varney & Co." to report on the surge in ballot initiatives and legislative proposals spanning both blue and red states, highlighting how lawmakers are experimenting with new approaches to taxation amid mounting budget pressures and political demands.

Those proposals are already raising concerns about unintended consequences, particularly when it comes to retaining wealth and investment within state borders.

BILLIONAIRES AND BUSINESSES FUEL GROWING EXODUS FROM BLUE STATES

"They do have other places to go. It's ultimately perhaps counterproductive if you want to fund certain programs at certain levels," Tax Foundation senior fellow Jared Walczak said.

The debate comes as some high-tax states are already grappling with out-migration, with IRS data showing residents and businesses moving from states like California, New York and Illinois to states such as Florida and Texas in recent years — a trend policymakers are increasingly factoring into tax decisions.

At the same time, backlash is building in other parts of the country, where voters are pushing to reduce or eliminate property and income taxes, setting up a broader national debate over how far states should go in reshaping their tax systems.

PROGRESSIVE LAWMAKERS BERNIE SANDERS, RO KHANNA UNVEIL $4.4T WEALTH TAX TARGETING BILLIONAIRES

The divide is playing out against a broader national shift in tax policy. According to the Tax Foundation, 23 states have cut their top marginal individual income tax rates since 2021, underscoring a growing push to improve competitiveness and attract residents. Meanwhile, rising home values have driven property tax bills higher in many regions, fueling calls for relief and adding pressure on lawmakers to find alternative revenue sources.

Cutting or eliminating major taxes presents a challenge for lawmakers, who must determine how to replace lost revenue while continuing to fund core services.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY – FROM ITEP

AT LEAST 88 PROFITABLE U.S. CORPORATIONS PAID ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN 2025

By Matthew Gardner and Spandan Marasini April 14, 2026

88 CORPORATIONS, $105 BILLION IN PROFITS, ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX

At least 88 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits in the U.S. While the biggest U.S. corporations have avoided taxes in this way for decades, it appears that corporate tax avoidance has increased in the most recent year. This is at least in part due to two separate packages of corporate tax cuts pushed through by the Trump administration: last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

These tax-avoiding corporations represent a variety of industries and together enjoyed more than $105 billion in U.S. pretax income in 2025. The statutory federal income tax rate for corporate profits is 21 percent, which means these 88 corporations would have paid a collective total of $22.1 billion for the year had they paid that rate on their 2025 income. Instead, they received $4.7 billion in tax rebates. This means the total federal corporate income tax breaks enjoyed by these companies comes to $26.7 billion when measured against the 21 percent statutory rate.  Measured against the 35 percent corporate income tax rate that was in effect before the two corporate tax cuts pushed through by Republicans and President Trump since 2017, these companies collectively cut their income taxes by $41 billion in 2025 alone.

These findings are based on ITEP’s analysis of the annual financial reports filed by the nation’s largest publicly traded U.S.-based corporations in their most recent fiscal year. All data presented here come directly from the income tax notes of these reports.

This is far from a comprehensive list of the new tax law’s large corporate beneficiaries: many companies with fiscal years that don’t align with the calendar year have not yet filed such reports for 2025, making it impossible to know the extent of their tax breaks. Some companies with substantial tax savings are excluded from this list because they are not part of the S&P 500 or Fortune 500. Large privately-held corporations are not required to disclose income tax expense and are excluded as well. This report also excludes some corporations that reported zero federal income tax on large profits in 2025 because they relied overwhelmingly on net operating losses from prior years to zero out their 2025 income tax.

WHICH COMPANIES PAID ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN 2025?

The companies avoiding all federal income tax in 2025 represent a broad cross-section of the U.S. economy, from manufacturing to services.

· The automaker Tesla reported zero federal income tax paid on almost $5.7 billion of U.S. income in 2025.

· Southwest Airlines avoided all federal income tax on $561 million of income last year; its competitor United Airlines achieved the same zero-tax result on almost $4.3 billion of U.S. income.

· The entertainment company Live Nation Entertainment paid zero federal income tax on $98 million of U.S. income.

· Yum! Brands, the parent company of the fast-food chains KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, paid no federal income tax on over $1 billion of U.S. pretax profits last year.

· Three tech companies that specialize in digital payments—PayPal, Toast, and Block—collectively paid zero federal income tax on $3.2 billion of U.S. income.

CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE HURTS STATE BUDGETS TOO

Because state corporate income tax rules generally are based on federal income definitions, tax breaks that are claimed at the federal level are routinely available against state tax as well. The nationwide state tax rates paid by these 88 companies bear that out: the corporations collectively reported an effective state income tax rate of just 1.4 percent. Since the nationwide weighted-average state corporate tax rate is closer to 6 percent, that implies that these companies may be avoiding state income taxes on close to three-quarters of their U.S. income.

CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE RELIES ON A VARIETY OF TAX BREAKS

Because the tax returns of these corporations are not public, it’s impossible to know exactly how the companies are avoiding all tax liability. But the Securities and Exchange Commission requires publicly traded companies to disclose, in their annual reports to shareholders, basic information about their U.S. pretax income, and the federal and state income tax paid on that income. Annual reports released starting this year, covering calendar year 2025, are subject to new, more detailed disclosure rules that also require companies to list categories of tax provisions that have a significant effect on their income tax expense each year.  For this reason, we can generally describe the tax breaks used by many of these 88 companies to get their tax expense to zero.

The most universally relied-on tax break in our sample is accelerated depreciation. A provision in the 2025 tax law allowing companies to immediately write off capital investments—the most extreme version of tax depreciation—helped more than half of these companies reduce their federal income tax last year. 3M, Cheniere Energy, Southwest Airlines, Duke Energy, Venture Global, and Tesla all used depreciation tax breaks to substantially reduce current income tax expense, as did several dozen other companies on this list. (Many other companies on the list likely used depreciation tax breaks but did not separately disclose them.) The 88 companies collectively reported reducing their income taxes by $11.4 billion in 2025 through accelerated depreciation.

At least 40 of these companies used the federal research and experimentation (R&E) credit to substantially reduce their federal income taxes in 2025. These include Honeywell, HP, CVS Health, PayPal, Walt Disney, Block, and Tesla. These companies collectively disclosed $1.6 billion of R&D credits in 2025.

More than 30 zero-tax companies achieved this in part by taking advantage of a new tax break created by Republican leaders in Congress last year. Retroactive to January of 2025, the new tax law allows companies to immediately write off their research and development expenses, rather than amortizing them over time as economic depreciation would require. While the required disclosures don’t give a precise amount, these companies appear to have reduced their 2025 income taxes by at least $4.4 billion using the new research expensing provision.

At least 10 of the companies used the Foreign-Derived Deduction Eligible Income (FDDEI) deduction to reduce their income taxes. The FDDEI deduction, expanded retroactively by last year’s Trump tax cuts, is designed to lower the federal corporate tax rate on some profits generated from exports, meaning sales to customers in foreign countries. The deduction, which now stands at 33.34 percent of eligible profits, is the successor to the deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII), which was introduced by the Trump tax law enacted in 2017. Among the beneficiaries of this tax break were HP, Halliburton, Walt Disney, Yum! Brands, and the defense contractors L3Harris and KBR.

More than a dozen companies used a tax break for executive stock options to sharply reduce their income taxes last year. These include Palantir, Tesla, Coinbase, Walt Disney, and Venture Global. This tax break allows companies to write off stock-option related expenses for tax purposes that go far beyond expenses they report to investors.

It’s impossible to know what fraction of the federal income tax breaks reported by these companies is attributable to last year’s corporate tax cuts. This is mainly because for several of the largest tax breaks, especially depreciation and the FDDEI tax break, the companies’ disclosures don’t separate the tax break that would have existed absent last year’s tax cuts from the incremental amount the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” provided. But it’s unquestionably true that these companies’ federal income tax bills were far lower in 2025 than they would have been absent the two rounds of corporate tax cuts pushed through by Republican leaders and the Trump administration in 2017 and 2025.

COLLECTIVELY THESE 88 CORPORATIONS REPORTED OVER $105 BILLION IN US INCOME AND $0 IN FEDERAL INCOME TAX

Table with 3 columns and 89 rows.

Company US Income State HQ

All 88 $105.24 billion

3M $1.84 billion MN

AdaptHealth $66 million PA

Ameren $1.60 billion MO

American Electric Power $3.67 billion OH

Antero Resources $848 million CO

APA $1.25 billion TX

ArcBest $81 million AR

ARKO $19 million VA

ASGN $146 million VA

Atmos Energy $1.46 billion TX

Autodesk $674 million CA

Belden $82 million MO

Biogen $1.17 billion MA

Block $1.52 billion CA

Brighthouse Financial $475 million NC

BrightView Holdings $76 million PA

Brink's $62 million VA

Cheniere Energy $6.97 billion TX

Citigroup $4.45 billion NY

Coinbase Global $1.62 billion DE

Costar Group $127 million VA

CVR Energy $19 million TX

CVS Health $6.57 billion RI

Datadog $90 million NY

Dominion Energy $3.49 billion VA

Dropbox $339 million CA

DTE Energy $1.54 billion MI

Duke Energy $5.54 billion NC

Edison International $6.22 billion CA

EQT $2.67 billion PA

ESAB $35 million MD

Etsy $173 million NY

GoDaddy $981 million AZ

Graphic Packaging $492 million GA

Halliburton $773 million TX

Hasbro $364 million RI

Hillenbrand $24 million IN

Honeywell International $845 million NC

HP $98 million CA

Huntington Ingalls Industries $777 million VA

Illumina $318 million CA

Jefferies Financial $597 million NY

Kaiser Aluminum $136 million TN

KBR $242 million TX

Kohl's $294 million WI

L3Harris Technologies $1.65 billion FL

Liberty Energy $201 million CO

Liberty Media $288 million CO

Live Nation Entertainment $98 million CA

Mastec $450 million FL

MasterBrand $33 million OH

Mosaic $142 million FL

NiSource $1.15 billion IN

NRG Energy $1.03 billion TX

Palantir Technologies $1.58 billion CO

Parsons $372 million VA

Paypal Holdings $1.43 billion CA

PennyMac Financial Services $554 million CA

Petco Health and Wellness $15 million CA

PG&E Corp. $2.46 billion CA

Pitney Bowes $151 million CT

Roku $72 million CA

SAIC $375 million VA

Scotts Miracle-Gro $249 million OH

Seaboard $57 million KS

Sealed Air $147 million NC

Sempra Energy $853 million CA

Solventum $555 million MN

Southwest Airlines $561 million TX

Southwest Gas Holdings $334 million NV

Telephone & Data Systems $58 million IL

Teradata $40 million CA

Tesla $5.68 billion TX

Textron $885 million RI

Toast $316 million MA

UGI $549 million PA

United Airlines Holdings $4.29 billion IL

Upbound Group $153 million TX

V2X $84 million VA

Venture Global $3.32 billion VA

Vistance Networks $21 million SC

Vistra Corp $1.15 billion TX

Walt Disney $8.30 billion CA

WEC Energy Group $1.67 billion WI

Winnebago Industries $22 million MN

Wynn Resorts $293 million NV

Xcel Energy $1.75 billion MN

Yum Brands $1.03 billion KY

ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE – FROM POLITICO

TAX DAY ARRIVES WITH REPUBLICANS STRUGGLING TO SELL THEIR CUTS

The GOP hoped its "big, beautiful bill" would raise its political fortunes, but is finding last year's tax cuts overshadowed by Iran and rising costs.

By Bernie Becker 04/15/2026 04:45 AM EDT

Republicans hoped that last year’s tax cuts would offer giant political benefits, with taxpayers receiving super-sized refunds and then rewarding them at the ballot box.

That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

Refunds haven’t jumped as much as Republicans hoped, which underscores a broader problem for the party. Many taxpayers remain unaware of last year’s tax cuts and aren’t feeling much relief, even though their “big, beautiful bill” offered substantial benefits to a good portion of them.

That’s one reason why Republicans are still doing everything they can to keep last year’s tax cuts top of mind this Tax Day, even as they also might be guilty of overpromising on refunds.

GOP officials also have another problem: Any benefits they might get from talking up the tax cuts are running headlong into the war in Iran and the surging gas prices associated with it, making their goal of holding Congress more daunting.

Even the most fervent of tax-cut evangelists is concerned.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform said Tuesday that a quick solution to the conflict with Iran could reduce some of the pressure on prices that might currently be overshadowing tax cuts.

“But that’s not guaranteed,” Norquist said at a pre-Tax Day event hosted by his group. “I run a taxpayer group. War’s kind of out of my control sometimes.”

To help further get the word out, Republican congressional leaders are writing opinion pieces with the heads of key business groups, and the party’s House campaign arm has started running more tax-themed digital ads.

SOME POSITIVES TO SELL

It’s not just Republicans on the Hill talking up last year’s tax cuts, either. President Donald Trump also is headed to Nevada and Arizona this week to plug new tax incentives. He’s expected to highlight “no tax on tips” in Las Vegas, where he first rolled out the idea during his 2024 campaign. Conservative groups are holding events around the country to help sell the tax cuts, too.

GOP officials have continued to talk up the boost this year in refunds, which for weeks now have been around $350 higher than in 2025 — an increase of around 11 percent in all.

But Trump and other senior Republicans had laid the groundwork for taxpayers to expect a much bigger check, vowing that refunds would grow by $1,000 — with an average all the way past $4,000. Instead, average refunds fell below $3,500 by the start of April, according to the IRS’s most recent filing season statistics.

Republicans do have positives to sell, after using the megabill to put in more than a half-dozen new or expanded tax benefits.

More than 25 million filers claimed the new deduction for overtime pay, according to Treasury statistics released Wednesday, well over projections for the entire filing season. The incentive for tipped income has outpaced projections as well, while about 30 million taxpayers are taking advantage of an additional deduction for seniors.

Other new GOP tax cuts, like the deduction for car loan interest, have been more of a dud, while Democrats have tarred what’s known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to the rich — much like the 2017 Trump tax cuts before it, and this time with safety-net cuts added in.

The end result is that many Americans have found immediate savings from the 2025 tax cuts swallowed up, with many still unconvinced that the law gave them much assistance at all.

A recent Fox News poll found that seven in 10 voters believe their tax burden is too high, largely because the wealthy aren’t paying enough, feeding into the Democrats’ message on last year’s megabill and the GOP approach on taxes in general.

Meanwhile, the Bipartisan Policy Center found in a poll of its own last week that barely a quarter of taxpayers who’d filed their return believed the tax law had helped them. Only a third of those who’d taken advantage of the “no tax on tips” or “no tax on overtime” provisions thought they’d gotten a boost — a potentially even more troublesome sign for Republicans.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said Tuesday that informing taxpayers about the new relief would be a “constant issue” for Republicans and that a good number of people had appreciated the new tax relief.

But he acknowledged that it could be tough to promote tax cuts, even as Tax Day arrives. “It’s hard to do the messaging when there are a lot of other things people are concerned about,” Lankford said.

PLAYING A TOUGH HAND

At the same time, plenty of Republicans believe they played their hand as well as they could in trying to offer immediate tax relief ahead of a midterm election in which they’d always struggle to maintain power, given their razor-thin House majority and the potential backlash to their full control of government under Trump’s second term.

After all, the focal point of last year’s megabill was to make permanent a range of key policies from Trump’s first round of tax cuts in 2017, something for which Republicans might never receive much credit for from voters.

GOP lawmakers then corrected what Norquist and other 2017 veterans saw as a big mistake from the original Trump tax cuts — that voters didn’t see or feel enough of the benefits before heading to the polls in a 2018 election where Republicans lost the House.

But another issue is that voters also won’t be getting tax relief solely through refunds, which can make it more challenging for the GOP to get the word out.

Donald Schneider of the investment bank Piper Sandler projected that about half of the roughly $100 billion in retroactive tax relief from the megabill being delivered will come via people owing the IRS much less this filing season than they otherwise would have.

The focus on refunds, Schneider said, “misses half the story.”

“It is important to not lose sight of both types of tax relief,” Schneider said.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO – FROM GUK

YES, THE RICH MUST START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES

We need a 5% wealth tax on America’s 938 billionaires. Over a 10-year period, this bill would raise much-needed $4.4tn for public coffers

By Sen. Bernie Sanders Wed 1 Apr 2026 06.00 EDT

Never before in American history have so few had so much wealth and power. Today, the top one per cent owns more wealth than the bottom 93%. One man, Elon Musk, worth $805bn, owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households.

And that inequality is getting worse. Last year alone, after receiving the largest tax break in history from Donald Trump, 938 billionaires in America became $1.5tn richer. Since he was elected, President Trump and his family have become $4bn richer.

We have a tax code that is totally rigged – written by representatives of the wealthy to benefit the wealthy

Never before in American history have we had such concentration of ownership. While profits soar, a handful of giant corporations dominate virtually every sector of our economy, charging higher and higher prices for the products they sell. Four Wall Street firms combined – BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street – are the major stockholders of more than 95% of American corporations. Never before in American history have so few billionaires controlled what we see, hear, and read in the media – both legacy media and social media. Never before in American history have we seen a ruling class, within a corrupt campaign finance system, wield the kind of political power it has today. In the 2026 midterm elections, just 50 billionaires have already spent over $433m to influence political campaigns and buy candidates who represent their interests.

Bottom line: the richest people in America have never ever had it so good.

That is one reality. Here’s the other reality.

The American working class has been under savage attack for years. Over the last many decades there has been an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity. Despite that, the average American worker is making almost $20 a week less today than he or she did 53 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.

According to the Rand Corporation, over the last 50 years, $79tn in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Almost all of the gains in worker productivity have gone to the top 1%.

Meanwhile, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck and are struggling to pay the outrageously high cost of rent, healthcare, prescription drugs, groceries, childcare and the basic necessities of life. Nearly half of older workers have nothing saved for retirement, and over 20% of our seniors are trying to make it on less than $15,000 a year. Tragically, 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and over half a million go bankrupt each year because of medically related debt.

WE CAN REVERSE AMERICA’S DECLINE

Why, in a nation of such extraordinary wealth, exploding technology and greatly increased worker productivity, are so many people struggling just to stay alive?

One of the major reasons is that we have a tax code that is totally rigged – written by representatives of the wealthy to benefit the wealthy. Instead of raising enough revenue to meet the needs of working families, corporate lobbyists have riddled the tax code with loopholes, allowing the wealthiest people and largest corporations in our country to avoid paying their fair share.

In 2006, Warren Buffett memorably said: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Mr Buffett went on to say that he, a multibillionaire, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. What Buffett said was true 20 years ago. It is even more accurate today.

In America today, billionaires now pay a lower effective tax rate than the average worker. Elon Musk paid an effective tax rate of less than 3.3%, while the average truck driver paid 8.4%. Jeff Bezos, now worth $223bn, paid an effective tax rate of less than 1%, while the average firefighter paid 8.7%.

Michael Bloomberg, worth $109bn, paid an effective tax rate of just 1.3%, while the average registered nurse paid 13.3%.

And Warren Buffett? His tax rate was just 0.1%, while the average schoolteacher paid 9.8%.

But it’s not just billionaires who are not paying their fair share. Last year, after Trump gave corporate America a tax break of more than $900bn, Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir, Ticketmaster and the company that owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken paid zero in federal income taxes. These companies combined are worth $3.5tn. Their owners are worth over $853bn. They made over $17bn in profits last year. And they paid nothing in federal income taxes.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CATCHING ON

In California, by a 2-to-1 margin, voters support a tax on billionaires to prevent over 3 million people from losing healthcare.

In New York City, over 62% of residents support Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for a 2% surtax on millionaires and billionaires.

Nationally, more than six out of every 10 Americans believe the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy and large corporations is too low.

That is why I recently introduced a bill that would establish a 5% wealth tax on the 938 billionaires in America who collectively are worth more than $8.2tn. These 938 billionaires constitute 0.000003% of the population.

Over a 10-year period, this bill would raise $4.4tn.

What would this legislation accomplish?

In the first year, we would provide every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less with a $3,000 direct payment. That is $12,000 for most families of four. We would end homelessness and the housing crisis in America by building 7m units of low-income and affordable homes and apartments.

We would expand Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing.

We would provide universal childcare throughout America.

We would strengthen public education by ensuring that no teacher in America makes less than $60,000 a year. In the midst of a major crisis in home healthcare, we would guarantee that seniors and people with disabilities receive the home healthcare they need through Medicaid.

And let’s not forget: Donald Trump and his Republican friends in Congress threw 15 million Americans off their healthcare in order to provide a trillion-dollar tax break for the top 1%. Through this bill, we would repeal those healthcare cuts and ensure that none of those 15 million people lose their healthcare.

In other words, we would provide all of this help and support to working families, the elderly, the children and the sick through a 5% tax on the wealth of 938 billionaires. Nobody with a net worth of less than a billion dollars would pay a penny more in taxes.

And let me tell you how insane the level of wealth inequality is in America today. If this legislation had been enacted last year, Elon Musk would have owed $42bn more in taxes, leaving him with just $792bn to survive.

Mark Zuckerberg would have owed $11bn more, leaving him with a meager $209bn to feed his family. Jeff Bezos would also have owed about $11bn more, leaving him with just $207bn to put a roof over his head.

In other words, despite raising an enormous amount of money that could improve life for hundreds of millions of Americans, the wealthiest people in this country have so much wealth that they would barely notice the difference.

As Justice Louis Brandeis profoundly said back in 1933: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

Let’s choose democracy over oligarchy.

The wealthiest people in America must start paying their fair share of taxes.

Let’s create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%.

· Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont

ATTACHMENT “A” – FROM THE DON JONES INDEX, April 17, 2025

LESSON for APRIL 17th, 2025 – “OF TARIFFS and TAXES”

(THE DON JONES INDEX: 4/17/25... 14,731.43; 4/10/25... 14,673.02; 6/27/13... 15,000.00

(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 4/17/25... 39,669.39; 4/10/25... 37,625.31; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)

Tuesday (2025) was Tax Day.

Well, maybe not for some. For reasons potent or petty to our Internal Revenue Service – acceding to the wishes and the whims of the weather, the President and, one presumes, God – five states enjoyed another two weeks’ leisure to pick up the damages from Helene and Milton, tote up their earnings for 2024, and send the results (and, if applicable, their money) in to Washington.

Taxation is almost as ancient as civilization. Today’s tax codes are extensive and ever-changing, but many of the basic tax types governments depend on today, including sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes, have been around since early civilization.

A concise history of the gumment levies dates back about 5,000 years ago, to ancient Egypt, where... according to a brief history by taxfoundation.org (ATTACHMENT ONE), the Pharaoh collected a tax equivalent to 20 percent of all grain harvests. Later, the Greeks were responsible for taking the idea of taxation and spreading it throughout the developed world, as they expanded their realm and civilization evolved.

Julius Caesar was first to implement a sales tax: “a 1 percent flat rate that was applied across the entire Empire. Under Caesar Augustus, the sales tax was 4 percent, closer to a rate we see today in many U.S. state sales taxes.” Augustus also imposed a direct taxation system that resembled an income tax. “This began as a direct tax on an individual’s wealth,” but when proven difficult to execute, the income tax replaced that collection. Rome was also the pioneer in imposing inheritance, or death, taxes

Originally, property taxes were levied in Egypt, Persia, and China based on the production value of the land, or how much the plot was expected to yield in goods, and so, therefore, “were typically paid by farmers.” Property taxes continued in Medieval Europe under William the Conqueror in England... “(f)amously, Lady Godiva rode a horse through the streets naked in protest of the property tax rate her husband was forced to pay.”

Tariffs also date back to the 3000s BCE “on trade of metal and wool between the ancient city of Kanesh in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and Assyria (in modern-day Iraq).” The Roman Empire adopted them and were, thereafter, imposed to control the trade of certain goods like wool, leather, butter, cheese, and more.

Taxes, our history and educators... most of them, largely contend... are the price Americans pay for living in a nation where freedom is charisted, justice is practiced and opportunity is ever knocking at the door. American colonies levied “property taxes, excise taxes, poll taxes, and some early forms of income taxes”, though tax rates and burdens were far less than their counterparts in Great Britain and the Crown, consequently struck out against their colonies by taxing sugar, printed materials and, in 1767, the the tax on tea “that led to the Boston Tea Party.”

After the war for independence, tariffs were “the original pipeline of tax revenue for the U.S. government,” including the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, which increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War, after which industrialization emabled the nativist dream of exports becoming more common than imports. The result was a foreign version of Old World Only, causing revenues to decline. “In 1913, as a result of declining tariff revenues and as part of a Progressive political push to shift tax burdens onto the wealthy and limit the excesses of the Golden Age, the 16^th Amendment was ratified, allowing for federal taxes to be levied on individual and business incomes.

“The World Wars led to the expansion of the federal income tax to boost the national budget and further increase progressivity in the federal tax code. Today, the income tax is the top stream of government revenue.”

The postwar consumption craze engendered decades of deficit spending - but when the party stops, voters... at least in the (small “d”) democratic countries... tend to cut off the music or even shoot the jukebox.

Prior to November, 2024, bakertilly.com (investment advisors and tax consultants) issued a report contending that the United State was facing a pivotal fiscal cliff next year, as numerous Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 provisions affecting individuals, estates and pass-through entities will sunset at the end of 2025, resulting in increased tax burdens for the majority of taxpayers (ATTACHMENT TWO) creating instability and resentment.

Two months before the election, bakertilley issued another report on the state of the state and the state of Americans’ money and their findings – atop the other burdens falling atop the Democratic Party were predicted to determine the outcome of the contest, and the country.

Dividing and comparing the tax policy promises and platforms of the competing parties, bakertilley.org opined that the G.O.P. supported “making the temporary TCJA provisions permanent” while President and candidate Biden and his replacement, Kamala Harris, promised to roll them back for taxpayers making over $400,000. bakertilley.org further broke down the economic issues into specifics – summarizing the party platforms as follows...

Business tax

“The largest difference in the Republican and Democratic business tax policy platform (was) the proposed corporate tax rate.” Republicans, then as now, campaigned on maintaining or even decreasing the current 21% corporate rate, “while Democrats would like to see an increase to 28%, which is still well below the pre-TCJA 35% rate.”

(See charts and graphs as ATTACHMENT THREE, 9/4/24)

Individual tax

Republicans also promised to make all of the expiring individual provisions permanent. Harris, the replacement nominee by then, campaigned on the Biden pledge to the under-$400,000 taxpayers plus an array for further sock-its like “the expansion of the net investment income tax and/or a wealth tax for ultra-high-net-worth taxpayers.”

Trust, estate and gift taxes

“The estate tax exemption (was) the primary focus in this area.” Republicans proposed that $10 million exemption per taxpayer, indexed for inflation; (13.61 million for 2024) extended or the entire estate tax repealed. Democrats wanted these made “more restrictive”.

Other policies were compared, although neither party had much to say about tariffs at the time – Trump, according to his previously stated views, promising to “implement a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports.” Harris focused on increasing the corporate tax rate.

Both expressed support for the popular proposal to eliminate taxes on tips and gratuities.

After four years of Sad Old Joe, plague, wars and inflaton, Americans rose up on their hind legs last November; growled, and voted to bring back Donald Trump, the President they’d elected eight and then rejected four years earlier. This time around, a more experienced, wilier coyote could point to the twenty twenties with a grin and a grimace – the latter reflecting upon Biden and his legacies: plague and war, higher prices everywhere and foreign fear and respect for the American eagle plummeting.

Two days after D-Day another financial corporation, Fidelity.com, issued its own autopsy on the Biden-Harris campaign and the restoration of Ol’ 45... now New ’47. (November 6^th, ATTACHMENT FOUR) and surmised that President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican victory (including control... however narrow... of the House and Senate) could “give him the upper hand in driving his agenda through Congress.”

Trump expressed support “for lowering corporate taxes to 15% from their current 21% rate” while the Democrats had wanted this raised.

On the other, left or populist hand, incoming Veep Vance expressed support for increasing the Child Tax Credit to $5,000 per little American, Trump proposed tax credits for “family caregivers taking care of a parent or loved one” (although nothing for retired or low-income below the poverty line or dependent on Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid... now all rumoured to be on the chopping block).

A week after Trump 2.0 took office U.S. News and World Report author Jorge Guajardo cited unnamed polls by “our” pollsters that recommended lowering the corporate tax rates “because it brings businesses and jobs back to the United States” rather than locating them overseas to avoid the U.S. government taking such a large cut and a full 61% of those polled said “spending cuts are necessary and worthwhile to lock in the 2017 tax cuts.” (Jan 28^th, ATTACHMENT FIVE)

And now we are nearly one fiscal quarter into that New American Order wherein another Cato-mite, Kimberly Clausing, toiling for U.S. News, argued that the public perception of wasted federal spending “shows a clear openness to making hard fiscal trade-offs. Even liberal voters acknowledge the need for spending restraint, with Democratic poll respondents stating they'd willingly cut about a third of federal expenditures to achieve greater fiscal responsibility,” no matter Democrats said it would mean hungry children, a lessening of American influence among our economic and military allies and as the liberals over there at GUK and IUK contend and the homegrown tax and spenders in Washington screeched, a neglected, eventually collapsing infrastructure.

“Many know that preserving our financial future means drastically shrinking the size and scope of government. Two-thirds of voters correctly conclude that cutting spending strengthens rather than hurts the economy, rejecting the Washington tax-and-spend orthodoxy. U.S. News’ Clausing cited Cato’s polling (Jan. 8^th, ATTACHMENT SIX)

Congress, with Speaker Mike in control and, as Democrats charge, cravenly beholden to Djonald UnContested, is disposed to do what it always does; meddle with the status quo and legislate improvements that usually consist of improvements for some, corrosion for others. In the case of MAGA... perversely – according to liberals, Democrats and liberal Democrats – it was the economic pains and aims of the lower middle class that pushed Ol’ 45 back over the top again, making him our New 47.

The Republican base, in 2024, had not, for the most part... gone to elite universities like Harvard (also on the President’s hit list, albeit for other reasons), many had had no education further than high school, if that. Many worked with their hands and made things that the businesspeople sold to other Americans and paid them workman’s wages that they paid out for food, shelter, some diversions of a limited nature, some savings for retirement or their children – if they were fortunate – for the American necessities of the time like a car, a television, maybe an iPhone or computer with Internet access and... often... a gun.

They had watched and felt their prospects declining through the Joe years – years when bad bugs from China (as they were told) killed their families and empowered government regulators as made them wear masks, like outlaws, and get stuck with needles bearing what they were told would be cures and preventions, but might also be vaccines that might contain other diseases to make them sicker or stupider, maybe nanoparticles to follow them around or turn, perhaps, to perverted practices that Democratic elits performed or, if not at least condoned.

Their betters told them that they were no better than the “peasants” that J. D. Vance saw in the Chinese, spat in the face of their God and took away their taxes to give to the bottom class of beggars and bums and criminals – the migrants from dark and dirty places swarming, like the cockroaches in Robert DeNiro and Danny Trejo’s “Machete” movie, over our borders to despoil and derail the American dream.

Squeezed from above and below, they united behind the promise of Making America Great Again and threw both the bums and the betters back into the swamps from whence they had crawled.

To the Marxist madmen of the left, they responded to allegations of inquality with affirmations of acknowledging their subservience – so long as movers and shakers of politics, economics and culture made things – things they needed or, at least, desired – and if some of them appeared to be making nothing other than money... well, it was only proof that they were better and smarter and more favored by God, so they stilled their doubts and chanted along with their Master: “God bless America! God keep us safe!”

To the extent that it protected them and gave them dreams to sleep upon of a night, these Americans... mostly Republicans, although more than a few had been born to parents or raised by grandparents who’d lived through depression and war and had pulled the lever for FDR and maybe JFK until the leftists deserted them on contentious issues like crime and race and citizenship while MAGA replaced the tired old issue of the class war with identity politics.

If the President also nurtured identity and personal grievances, well those were their grievance too and his solution to the troubles – tariffs, bigger and more beautiful tariffs that would put the rest of the world back into its place... appreciating the innovations and generosity of Americans instead of stealing our technology and undercutting our economy with their mindless army of coolies and peasants flooding our markets with the cheap substitutes for the goods that Americans of other times had made and claimed as their own.

After all, prior to the invention of the Federal Income Tax... a consequence of World War and the actually progressive Progressives of a century ago before Warren Harding shut the door on poor and working classes to kick off a decade of debauchery that ended in the Great Depression... the country was able to thrive on tariffs and so, King Donnie now maintains, should go back in the Wayback machine and do that (and a few other things) – bringing us closer and closer to Tax Week, 2025.

A view from across the pond... the Independent U.K. (not as liberal as the Guardian, but liberal nonetheless) termed Trump tariff trauma a “queasy” rollercoaster ride: posting on Truth Social that “THE BEST DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE!!!”

But, while a wave of his magic wand could send the Dow soaring hundreds, even thousands of points up with the rest of the Wall Street idices profiting too, gravity has occasioned the nasty habit of bringing the markets back to earth again.

There are signs that the American people are getting more fed up with the erratic nature of all of the tariffs, the Brits... as also the Euros, the Asian markets, the angry Chinese (but not the untaxed Russians) and as many as two thirds of Americans) now contend. (ATTACHMENT SEVEN) Ray Dalio, the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, “warned that a recession could be the least of the United States’ worries, and that a reorganization of the global trade structure could have catastrophic results for the nation.”

Trump has sown chaos in global commerce and financial markets with a chaotic on-again, off-again approach to imposing duties on products from … basically the entire world. He has shaken investors’ faith in the U.S. dollar and in federal bonds, while major stock markets have plummeted. “Experts are increasingly warning the U.S. may be entering a recession – or worse,” Olivier Knox of U.S. News concurred. (Monday, April 14: ATTACHMENT EIGHT)

Describing the ups and loops, the downs and now... except to China... the temporary outs of the tariffs, Mr. Knox set his own timeline beginning on April 2^nd when the President (still playing the Fool in the view of many) announced what he called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 50% on American trading partners. “The president also set a baseline 10% tariff on imports from scores of other countries and territories. Then, under pressure from the bond market, he suspended the former for nearly everyone for 90 days.”

Then, on Friday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials announced (at what was certainly the behest of the best and brightest among Donald’s Cabinet of Curiosities) “a carve-out for high-tech items such as smartphones, laptops and television displays, many of which come from China.

ComSec Howard Lutnick told ABC’s “This Week,” that all the tech toys “were going to have a special focus-type of tariff to make sure that those products get reshored.” 

The problem is that it will take years, in some cases, to bring the industry up to the standards of the Chinese and other imports. Hasty replacements will result in more planes falling out of the sky, guns that backfire, failed scientific experiments... and as for nuclear safety... well...

“One of the biggest X factors,” Knox concluded, is whether the president “will reach some kind of trade ceasefire with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Senior Trump aides in recent days have talked up the importance of the two leaders speaking to each other, while also insisting that Xi must make the first move.”

He hasn’t. And he’s said that he won’t.

“You think tariffs are bad?” asked Adam Michel director of tax policy studies for the Libertarian-right gang of pot smokers, wife swappers and tax haters at Cato – also moonlighting for U.S. News, also on Monday... “Wait till you see what's next.”

Trump’s tariffs are raising prices on imported goods, roiling financial markets and angering many U.S. consumers who now have to pay what is an extra tax on those items from abroad. “But an even larger tax hike is looming on the horizon: the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term.” (ATTACHMENT NINE)

Cato commissioned YouGov to conduct a poll of 2,000 Americans which showed “overwhelming support for making those tax cuts permanent. Americans, regardless of their political differences, say they can't afford higher taxes and prefer to cut spending rather than hike taxes to make up for the loss of income to the federal government.

There are several nails within these Nikes of good intent – many opinionators, even some of whom are Republicans, acknowledge that tariffs are taxes on Americans because... whether the foreigners retaliate or not upon goods and services of varying necessity being tariffed with additional tariffs of their own... the combined price increases upon merchers of everything from cars to cloths, gas to groceries, will compel them to raise their prices at the pump or the aisles (those, that is, that are not driven out of business). Further, since the discretionary/necessity indices favor the more affluent, funding the government through tariffs will only increase inequality (as we shall explore in next week’s Lesson),

Attempting to spin a nonpartisan (or, at least, less partisan) spin on the taxes and tariffs, the Tax Policy Center, back before Christmas with Trump elected but still waiting in the wings, took note of the upcoming expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) to contend that, while all income groups would get a tax cut relative to current law, higher-income households would receive a larger benefit. 

The TCJA was a sweeping piece of legislation that made major temporary changes to many individual tax provisions, including reducing marginal tax rates, expanding the standard deduction, expanding the child tax credit, modifying the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and introducing a new deduction for businesses organized as pass-through entities (199A). (12/19/24, ATTACHMENT TEN) It raised taxes by repealing personal exemptions and limiting itemized deductions.

Using charts, graphs. figures and mathematics – as noted in the references above and website here - the TPC deduced that low- and middle-income households “primarily benefit from the TCJA’s larger standard deduction and expanded child tax credit (Figure 2) by an average of 0.5% of after-tax income; that middle-income households receive a 1.2 percent boost in after-tax income (Figure 3) and the “highest-income taxpayers would benefit the most overall from these extensions, seeing net tax cuts of 2 percent of after-tax income for those in the top quintile (2.5 percent for those in the top 1 percent).

The liberal Salon called these differentials a "massive redistribution" of wealth from workers to the rich and gains would be wiped away by the higher prices tariffs would bring. (April 12, ATTACHMENT ELEVEN)

Elizabeth Pancotti, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and a managing director at the Groundwork Collective, described the current GOP plan to Salon, thence to America, as a “triple whammy of massive redistribution in a society that is already tilted toward the wealthy.”

“The end goal here is to redistribute trillions of dollars from the middle and working class at the bottom to the one percent and the wealthy folks,” Pancotti said.

In essence, a tariff is a sales tax on imported goods, and because lower-income Americans spend a larger proportion of their income on goods, they will also spend a larger proportion of their income paying the tariffs on affected goods.

While the top 1% of households received an average tax cut of $60,000, according to the Tax Policy Center (above), the bottom 60% of households received an average tax cut of less than $500 against costs which the Yale Budget Lab estimated would cost the average American household around $4,689 per year, “a sum that eclipses the tax cut that most households received in the GOP’s budget plan while only being about 8% of the average tax cut the wealthiest households received.”

Pancotti also pointed out that the Republican budget plan “will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to services like Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which serves as a safety net for the poorest Americans,” and would facilitate loopholes that Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says will also make it easier for the wealthy to avoid paying their taxes.

The reverse Robin Hoodwink will be global, as well as local, with the UN’s trade and development arm, UNCTAD, calling on Donald Trump to exempt the world’s poorest and smallest countries from “reciprocal” tariffs, or risk “serious economic harm” according to the liberal GUK. (April 14^th, ATTACHMENT TWELVE) GUK identified twenty eight small, poor countries as being unlikely to become a threat to the world’s largest economy, “given their small size and modest levels of exports.”

“These include Laos, which is expected to face a 48% tariff; Mauritius 40%; and Myanmar, to be hit with 45%, despite trying to recover from a devastating earthquake,” UNCTAD reported, holding out hope that the current 90-day pause would present an opportunity “to reassess how small and vulnerable economies – including the least developed countries – are treated.

“Malawi, facing 18% tariffs, bought just $27m of US exports last year; Mozambique, which faces 16% tariffs, $150m; Cambodia, set for 49% tariffs, $322m.” Most of these exports were “agricultural commodities, for which the US is unlikely to be able to find substitutes elsewhere – let alone develop a domestic industry.” (UNCTAD warned Easter candy-lovers that $150m in vanilla imported from Madagascar, close to $800m in cocoa from Ivory Coast and $200m in cocoa come from Ghana.)

Even a few Republicans (whom the New York Times termed caught between their “populist ambitions and low-tax instincts” as MAGA, its base of support, “increasingly comes from the working class.” (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

But Gotham’s smaller and harsher publican, the New York Post reported Speaker Mike’s pivot to the President’s right, in an interview with another conservative medium, the Fox. (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN)

Despite Trump previously telling Republicans that he is open to a tax increase for the wealthy, Johnson (R-La.) argued that he’d prefer to find payfors elsewhere “and underscored that the GOP needs to hustle on finishing the Trump agenda bill due to bond market jitters.”

“I’m not a big fan of doing that,” Johnson told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” when asked about ratcheting up taxes on the rich. “We’re the Republican Party and we’re for tax reduction for everyone. So, I mean, that’s a general principle that we always try to abide by.”

Postie Ryan King acknowledged that moderates are skittish (or as Trump termed them, “yippy”) about “deep cuts to programs like Medicaid, creating a predicament for Johnson, given the slim GOP control of the House and Senate” and pachydermical plans to increase defense spending.

Tax hikes on the rich have been floated as a means of making the math work; even hardliners such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) at least expressing “openness” to it.

Privately, Trump has told Senate Republicans that he is open to “jacking up taxes on high-income earners,” Semafor reported. Fellow skeptics also include House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).

And Trump ally Steve Bannon insisted that Republicans will jack up taxes on the rich, telling “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday that “Trump and the MAGA movement will raise taxes on the wealthy.”

On Stage Left, the Guardian U.K. reported on a new analysis of company filings by the Groundwork Collaborative economic thinktank after eleven top US consumer goods corporations reportedly spent more than three times as much on share buybacks as they did on taxes.

PepsiCo, Comcast, personal care giant Kimberly Clark, line-of-fire United Healthcare and the other companies collectively recorded half a trillion dollars (US) in profits since the last cuts. “They enacted $463bn in buybacks and paid just $140bn in federal taxes.” (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN)

“The companies are now throwing massive amounts of money at investors who are largely already wealthy people,” said Pancotti of Groundwork (above). “This is how you get the staggering wealth inequality in this country.”

In analyzing prices on food, GUK contended that General Mills and PepsiCo (well, at least the latter is often sold in food stores) “have returned $66bn to shareholders and paid just $16bn in taxes since the cuts.” Diaper merchers Kimberly Clark and Procer Gamble have seen their profits “soar by at least 70% as they raise prices across their multitude of brands and consumers pay about one-third more overall on personal goods” with the average American family paying $1,000 more per year per child since the days of the plague, “prompting some state governments to start covering the costs under Medicaid” which is the turkey neck on Trump’s tax and tariff chopping block.

Similar instances of gouging are endemic in shelter, in Comcast and AutoZone and other corporations where executive compensation is tied to stock price, and higher share prices keep activist shareholders at bay, “so there’s plenty of reason for company leadership to enact them,” Lenore Palladino, a University of Massachusetts economist, told the Guardian.

Fox (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) was relieved to report that Trump’s tax cut proposal survived what was termed a "rule vote," a “framework that serves as one of the first steps in the budget reconciliation process.” The legislation survived by the narrowest of margins... 216 to 215 votes... with three Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Victoria Spartz, R-Ind.; and Mike Turner, R-Ohio — voting with Democrats to block it.

But several other Republicans who voted to allow debate on the measure said they “will still oppose its final passage” unless amendments were made. Republican fiscal hawks raised concerns about the differences in minimum mandatory spending cuts, which they hope will offset the cost of new federal investments and start a path to reducing the deficit.

The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House baseline begins at $1.5 trillion — a significant gap.

“Conservatives have demanded extra guarantees from the Senate GOP that it is committed to pursuing deeper spending cuts in line with the House package,” said the Fox.

"They don't have a plan that I've seen. So until I see that, I'm a no," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital. 

After amending the legislation to include the deeper spending cuts that recalcitrant Republicans demanded, the House... on Thursday last... passed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” by a comparative landslide: 216 to 214.

Since the House bill has deeper spending cuts than the one passed by the Senate, the two versions must be merged into one bill for Trump to sign into law in a merger process called "reconciliation" – “and further legislation will be needed to enact the bigger tax cuts that Trump has asked for.” (BBC, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN)

“The House plan, currently a broad blueprint with many details still to be worked out, would cut taxes by about $5 trillion (£3.9 trillion). Over the next decade, it would also (also) add $5.7 trillion to the US government's debt,” according to another U.K. medium - Reuters. “The Treasury reports that US debt currently stands at around $36 trillion.”

The revisions won over Turner, leaving Massie and Spartz the only dissenters in the House.

The budget measure will also slash the money coming into the US federal government. If it eventually passes, the bill will extend tax cuts that were passed during Trump's first term in 2017.

President Trump has also asked for additional tax cuts on tips – to make good on a campaign promise to end income taxes on tips for service-industry workers – as well as on overtime wages and Social Security retirement benefits.

Those tax cuts, if passed, would further increase US government debt.

In a statement after the House vote, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: "This vote is more than a budget win; it's a statement of purpose and strength, which affirms the Trump administration's commitment to delivering growth and opportunity."

“A rise in federal borrowing requires another vote by Congress to increase the debt ceiling.” Although such measures have been contentious, Bessent said during a cabinet meeting on Thursday that he was confident that Congress would raise the ceiling again later this year.

However the leader of the House Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, called the budget bill a "disgrace" and criticised potential cuts to Medicaid, the US government program that funds health care for low-income Americans.

The legislation which calls for a minimum of $4 billion in spending cuts is far less than a previous version approved by the House that mandates $1.5 trillion in cuts. Reuters, again (ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) said “the $4 billion figure is simply a minimum that does not prevent Congress from passing much larger spending cuts in the months to come.”

Republican leaders said that if the billions in tax cuts are not renewed, “Americans will face a tax hike of trillions of dollars” not to mention the revenues lost to “tax breaks for overtime wages, tipped income and Social Security benefits, that Trump promised on the campaign trail.” Nonpartisan analysts (unnamed) said that could drive the bill's cost north of $11 trillion.

Billions... trillions... what’s a few million here and there, falling out of Uncle Sam’s wallet. Don Jones would sure like to pick even that up... yessirree!

"I don't care how philosophically principled you are, I don't care how bold and dramatic the legislation is, if (the billions, not trillions bill) never makes it to the president's desk, it's never going to become a law," Republican Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma said in a Thursday interview.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune tried to sway the concerns of the House hardliners, pledging, "we'll certainly do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible" with spending cuts.

Speaker Johnson assured the fiscal hawks that he’d push for work requirements for able-bodied young men who "play video games all day" and said the rest of the cuts would come from a clearing away of waste, fraud, and abuse in the system... Democrats, of course, declaring otherwise and even wishy washy Republican Susan Collins dissented: “I don't see how you get to $880 billion."

“What they’re doing in reality is giving billionaires the national credit card and telling them to go hog wild,” said Representative Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, during the legislative debate.

Now?

Riley Beggin of USA Today (ATTACHMENT NINETEEN) predicted “weeks of debate” on the details of new tax cuts “and how much to spend on each program, as lawmakers flesh out the bare-bones resolution.”

Republicans plan to pass their tax, tariff and budget bill through "reconciliation," which allows them “to skirt the Senate filibuster and its challenging 60-vote threshold.” But passage of the tax cuts may add between five and eleven trillion to the National Debt over the next decade which the ‘Pubs believe can be reconciled by slashing Medicaid, snatching school lunches from children and avoiding the looming default by raising the debt ceiling another $5 trillion.

Trump has targeted Harvard and... were he more competent... would be able to shut it down. But he isn’t, and he can’t, so HKS.HARVARD.org (ATTACHMENT TWENTY) solicited trade expert Robert Lawrence (the Albert L. Williams Professor of International Trade and Investment at HKS – the Harvard Kennedy (John and Bobby, not Bobby Junior) School, as graduated Peters Hegseth and Navarro, Bill O’Reilly and Turkish dictator Erdogan – and author of “Behind the Curve: Can Manufacturing Still Provide Inclusive Growth?”) to discourse upon the debt, the deficit and other things... and Lawrence answered that just over 8% of Americans work in manufacturing... that manufacturing (at present) “is simply too small to have a significant impact on the American labor force,” comprised of gumment men (and women), middlemen and merchers and way, way too many parasites.

Lawrence believes in a New World Order in which Americans no longer make stuff... trade, taxes, tariffs and services or not... so the robots and foreigners will do the work Americans used to do.

Maybe somebody should consider legislation to tax the robots?

He says that the bright side is that higher tariffs will strengthen the dollar, but the dark is that “foreigners are not going to take these tariffs lying down. They are going to retaliate.” As they have.

The old debate was, asked Lawrence, “do we decouple the West from China?” The new debate is going to be, “does the rest of the world really need the United States?”

Or Harvard?

In anticipation of Liberation Day (and April Fools’), the Washpost, prior to his humiliation pauses, coached advisers that the tariffs represented “a generational opportunity to transform the U.S. economy.” (March 29^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE) This kicked off the first of many stock market declines and pissed off brokers and broke retirees... but did electrify Steve Bannon, who gushed: “Instead of Trump’s Birthday, make ‘Liberation Day’ a national holiday to honor the jobs, skills, and trade that returned to America and her workers.”

And her robots.

“At some point they’re going to have to choose a strategy, because several of these stated goals are in contradiction with each other,” said Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. “You can’t have a tariff for everything and everyone — in time, they will have to reveal what the real purpose is.”

And the President...

The WashPost reported that, in an interview with NBC posted on Saturday, Trump said he “couldn’t care less” if carmakers raised prices as a result of the tariffs. “I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars. We have plenty,” Trump said.

“LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA IS COMING, SOON,” the president posted on Truth Social. “FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BOTH FRIEND AND FOE. BUT THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.”

USA Today asked and answered such questions as the curious wandered and wondered about (ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO) such as what are reciprocal tariffs (matching duties on nations that charge fees on U.S. exports), why (because the U.S. “has allowed other nations to levy tariffs on U.S. exports without any consequences”), and “who are the Dirty Fifteen?”

The Dirty Fifteen, SecTreas Scott Bessent said on Fox Business are “nations that contribute most significantly to the U.S. trade deficit and impose the largest tariffs.” These include China, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Switzerland, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, South Africa and various members of the European Union, according to the Wall Street Journal.

See more Q&A at the Attachment.

“The Republican president plans to tax imported pharmaceutical drugs, copper and lumber,” Time opined (ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE)

“He has put forth a 25% tariff on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, even though the United States also does so. Imports from China are being charged an additional 20% tax because of its role in fentanyl production. Trump has imposed separate tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico for the stated reason of stopping drug smuggling and illegal immigration. Trump also expanded his 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs to 25% on all imports.”

ComSec Lutnick says they will force other nations to show Trump “respect.”

Curvy e-con-mystic Arthur Laffer, who says he views “Trump as a smart and savvy negotiator”, estimates the tariffs on autos, if fully implemented, “could increase per vehicle costs by $4,711.” The investment bank Goldman Sachs estimated that the economy would grow this quarter at an annual rate of just 0.6%, “down from a rate of 2.4% at the end of last year.”

Happy Harvard grad and out-of-jail Pete Navarro told the Fox that auto tariffs, alone would raise $100 billion annually and the other tariffs “would bring in about $600 million per year, or about $6 trillion over 10 years. As a share of the economy, that would be the largest tax increase since World War II, according to Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.”

Foreign leaders responded as follows...

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Trump's tariff threats had ended the partnership between his country and the United States and that Canada already has announced retaliatory tariffs.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tariffs were “not coherent” and would mean "breaking value chains, creating inflation in the short term and destroying jobs.

The Chinese government said Trump's tariffs would harm the global trading system and would not fix the economic challenges identified by Trump.

Time (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR) also took note of the President’s knee-taking (which he persisted in calling a victory)... telling the press that people “were jumping a little bit out of line... getting yippy.”

A few more responses from foreign leaders were solicited...

Bangladesh

Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh’s interim leader, thanked Trump for “responding positively to our request” for a pause. The U.S. is the biggest export market for Bangladesh, which had been hit hard by a 37% tariff.

European Union

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the tariff pause in a Thursday statement, calling it an “important step towards stabilising the global economy.”

Germany

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz said Trump’s move is a “response to the determination of the Europeans.”

Greece

“There is a European message and then there is a Greek message,” Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece told American conservative news network Breitbart on Wednesday. “On the European front there is a possibility of finding a win-win solution when it comes to trade, a solution which will be mutually beneficial. As far as Greece is concerned, we have a strategic partnership with the U.S. I have worked with President Trump before and I can work very well with him again...”

India

An unnamed Indian government official told Reuters on Thursday that the country wants to move swiftly on a trade deal with the U.S., after Trump temporarily reduced a 27% “reciprocal” tariff on the country to 10%.

Ireland

Simon Harris, the Tánaiste or second-ranking government leader of Ireland said in a Wednesday statement after meeting the same day with ComSec Lutnick in Washington, D.C. that Trump’s pause “will come as a relief to many businesses in Ireland,”

Italy

Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said Italy, also welcomed Trump’s pause on tariff – telling reporters in Rome on Wednesday: “Within the G7 all of us outside the U.S. spoke to try to calm the situation and find a way to bring the Trump administration to the table and to a reasonable position.”

Japan

Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s Minister for Economic Revitalization, told Bloomberg News that the country’s “position is unchanged” and that “...(w)e continue to express our strong concerns and strongly request that they be reviewed.” citing ongoing targeted tariffs on Japan’s metals and automobiles.

Trump would personally meet with Italian and Japanese representatives later this week.

Malaysia

Malaysia’s Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry posted on LinkedIn that the country welcomes Trump’s pause on higher tariffs. Malaysia had been hit with a 24% “reciprocal” U.S. tariff, and other members, including Vietnam and Thailand, of ASEAN, which Malaysia holds the rotating chairship of this year, also faced significant levies.

Poland

Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland posted “let’s make the best of the next 90 days on X... maintaining close transatlantic relations is a common responsibility of Europeans and Americans, regardless of temporary turbulences,” Tusk added.

South Korea

South Korean trade envoy Cheong In-kyo met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and said that the tariff pause “provides room for negotiations.”

Taiwan

Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung also said Trump’s pause gives the country “breathing room for negotiations.” A bulk of Taiwan’s trade surplus with the U.S. is in its export of semiconductors, but Trump waived tariffs after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s largest chipmaker—pledged another $100 billion investment in the U.S.

U.K.

The U.K. will continue to “coolly and calmly” approach negotiations with the U.S., as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News that “What we want to see is a reduction in barriers to trade, so countries can trade effectively.”

Vietnam

The U.S. and Vietnam agreed to begin negotiations for a trade agreement as Deputy Prime Minister Ho Duc Phoc said the two countries, “should work towards creating a framework to allow for mutual trade relations.”

Vietnam had earlier offered to cut its tariff rates on U.S. goods to 0%, Trump said on Truth Social, but White House trade advisor Peter Navarro... accusing the Vietnamese of being cheaters... said the offer was not good enough.

The German publication DW further reported that they and, in fact, the entire EU would suspend its own retaliatory tariffs to allow "time" for negotiations. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE)

Their timeline of tariff happenings included Trump’s April 9^th tariff pause after EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said that the Euros consider US tariffs “unjustified and damaging, risking economic harm to both sides, as well as (to) the global economy”; Chinese leader Xi’s arrival in Hanoi to plot strategy with the Vietnamese; Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba’s anti-American speech to parliament in advance of trade talks between Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato and SecTreas Scott Bessent - including further warnings by Trump against the Japanese attempt to buy U.S. Steel, and a rebound on the world financial markets against the U.S. dollar – sending American financial speculators out to buy more gold.

In Shanghai, anti-American sentiment on the streets was rising, according to the Guardian U.K. (April 11^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX) with State media and the foreign ministry have been sharing a clip of the former US president Ronald Reagan decrying tariffs in 1987. On X, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has been trolling the US, posting a meme of a Make America Great Again baseball cap increasing in price from $50 to $77.

The most telling propaganda has been the resurfacing of a video clip of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong from 1953. “As to how long this war (the Korean) will last, we are not the ones who can decide,” Mao says. “No matter how long this war is going to last, we will never yield,” he’d said to applause.

Historians are comparing the present moment to the Opium Wars, which were fought over an unsavoury mix of addictive opiates and anger about trade imbalances – just like in 2025. GUK included admonitions by Ren Yi, an influential commentator who writes under the name Chairman Rabbit, who wrote: “The trade war is a war of public opinion, public sentiment, and information … China should adopt a ‘wartime’ state of tension in terms of public opinion, and all sectors should move in one direction and one goal. This issue is by no means a joke.”

For proof, Beijing banned the import of Hollywood movies last week and Chinese comedians... yes, there are a few... joked that Trump’s new slogan should be “MCGA” – Making China Great Again.

Some of GUK’s Shanghai sources also warned that, “without the linchpin of trade keeping the US and China on co-operative terms, the reasons for avoiding more dangerous conflicts, such as war in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, are becoming less compelling.”

Reuters (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN) went a little bit further in reporting that the Chinese have put civilian government officials in Beijing on “wartime footing” and – short of invading Taiwan, have ordered a diplomatic charm offensive “aimed at encouraging other countries to push back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to four people familiar with the matter.”

Their gang of four described how Beijing's diplomats have been engaging other governments targeted by Trump tariffs, including sending letters seeking cooperation to several countries. “Longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea have also been contacted, two people said.”

Most of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential government deliberations.

"China is a responsible major country. We stand up against hegemony, not only to safeguard our own rightful interests, but also to uphold the common interests of the international community," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a faxed statement.

Reuters, looking back to Trump 1.0 recalled that, between 2017 and 2021, Beijing had several high-level channels of communication, “most notably between then-ambassador Cui Tiankai and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.”

There isn’t an equivalent channel this time around, according to a Beijing official familiar with Sino-American ties, who added that China wasn’t sure who spoke for Trump on their relationship.

Chinese ambassador to the U.S. Xie Feng made unsuccessful attempts before the election to reach Trump’s billionaire ally Elon Musk, according to another anonymous “U.S. scholar”. Musk did not return the Brits’ request for comment nor Reuters reported, did assorted curiosities from Trump’s cabinet including NatSec’s Mike Waltz and SecState Marco Rubio, whom they describe as a “China hawk”.

The most the world, the media and Don Jones learned regarding the potentiality of trade war or even real war with China came during an appearance by ComSec Howard Lutnick on ABC Sunday, where Lutnick merely surmised that “intermediaries” expected that the President of the United States and President Xi of China would “work this out," Lutnick said.

Instead, Reuters opined, the Chinese... “(d)rawing on lessons from Trump’s first term,” have created “a retaliatory playbook that includes tariffs as well as restrictions on about 60 U.S. companies and curbs on exports of rare earths,” which embargo probably impacts American tech jockeys even more than “Minecraft” will disappoint Chinese chicken jockeys.

DW (above) reported that Asian stocks rose after Trump's weekend announcement of an exemption of tariffs on electronics. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 Index was up 1.6% while in Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index rose 2.4%. The Shanghai Composite Index also rose 0.8% on Monday morning. Stocks in Sydney, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei and Manila also went up before going down, again, today.

Time’s Philip Elliott fingered the one person... aside from Trump “who could definitely put an end to this economic chaos...” and his name is (Speaker) Mike Johnson. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT)

Phil added that Trump continued to “goad a global meltdown” (Donnie, perhaps being the “Greatest Of All Dunces”) and that his antics have triggered a “circus” that “may haunt GOP lawmakers for a generation and retirees into their graves.”

Here’s looking at you, Chuck Grassley.

“If Johnson were to give the green light to a measure reasserting Congress’ authority over tariffs,” Elliott fantasizes, “things would change really quickly on Capitol Hill. There would likely be majorities in both chambers for such legislation—perhaps even large enough to override the veto Trump promised on Monday to issue if such a bill reached his desk.

“But such a bold move could very well lead to Johnson getting a pink slip from his caucus, as his Speakership barely happened, and only then with Trump’s intervention.

The chances? Nil! Phil noted a “top hand” among House Republicans who texted him that “President Trump is still the leader of the party. Speaker Johnson has the gavel. Leader [John] Thune runs the Senate. And the Supreme Court is our friend. As the kids say: STFU.”

So the decision to postpone Trump’s tariffs on mostly everyone except China could not help but inspire relief.

“Republicans were otherwise pleased with the apparent retreat a week after Trump’s Rose Garden announcement threw the financial and political worlds into a frenzy,” reported a trio of politicos from Politico (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE)

“I think jubilation is too strong a word, but ... it was positive,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who described fellow senators “checking in on the balances of their retirement account as stocks surged.”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer Greer, “who spent Tuesday and Wednesday morning defending the tariff rollout and insisting the president shouldn’t let the stock market drive his economic decisions,” told the House Ways and Means Committee that he knew a pause on the tariffs was under discussion when he entered the hearing in the morning “but that he only learned of the pause in real time.”

Other lawmakers “also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind. Several lawmakers pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy.”

“As he promised, he’s going to use these tariffs to leverage good, strong trade agreements, just like he got finished before in Trump 45,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I’m excited.”

The Polititrio next channeled Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, (who) was more blunt: “Ten percent tariffs are bad, but they’re better than 60 percent.”

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Privately, though, others in the GOP saw little method to the madness. “What a shitshow,” said a conservative House Republican granted anonymity to react candidly to the pause, “and after [Greer] just testified how we need the tariffs?”

Elliott, again, contended that “President Donald Trump blinked. Sort of.” (Time, April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY)

“While markets acted with giddiness and the White House took a victory lap, it was an obvious climb-down but not a full-on retreat. And, like so much else in Trump’s hour-by-hour zigzag, both global leaders and millions of businesses have no confidence that the latest rules will still be in place by the time I finish typing this sentence,” Elliott opined, further declaring that the President has been made “the new king of the sandbox after throwing a tantrum that traumatized his bullied rivals.”

Trade Rep Greer, as described in Elliott’s previous treatise, noted the 10% tariff is on the low end. “We should be running up the score,” he told the Senate Finance Committee – saying the proceeds could help reduce the national pile of red ink.

Cato-mite Scott Lincicome, having included the President’s voluntary pause among three options (perhaps excluding the reality of permanent reciprocity as too grisly to contemplate) told Elliott that Trump’s “sudden lurch” against the “coin-toss” SCOTUS and feckless Congress was the least worst of all possible worlds.

“It sucks, but it’s not Armageddon,” Lincicome said.

A CBS poll on the long-term impacts found Americans split according to partisanship, but both factions made the assumption that the tariffs wouldn’t be permanent... that Trump was just using them in his long-term strategy of expressing dominance and then cutting deals. (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE)

“But in the short term, a big majority of Americans think new tariffs are going to raise prices, and many think that's the case in the long term, too. So, an inflation-weary public is bracing for that to hit their bottom line: a growing number think Trump's policies are making them financially worse off, not better,” most think that tariffs will make the economy worse more immediately, too and a majority finally agrees that Donald Trump now owns the issue, the economy and the future.

Old Joe’s ghost has finally been exorcised... for better or for worse. “A majority say his policies, not Joe Biden's, are responsible”

Bouncing from issue to issue to issue, short and/or long term, the CBS/YouGov numbers found more people saying they liked Trump's goals with tariff and trade policy than liked his approach; that Republicans and most independents believed “judging Trump's trade policies will take at least a few months (or even years) to evaluate”, while Democrats were more ready to evaluate them sooner; that, while all factions believed that “the wealthy and corporations” would benefit, effects on the middle and working class were divided by their biases (and Trump’s trending, like the markets, was pointing down).

For the large majority who think the economy was worsening, prices and general lack of confidence were cited as top reasons, along with Donald Trump specifically. Those who think the economy is good — a group that includes a lot of Republicans — listed Mr. Trump, along with general confidence, and the job market. 

“(C)urrent views of the U.S. economy have been majority negative for years and still are. More Republicans are calling it good now, a partisan effect we often see over the years when the White House changes hands. And Republicans say that's in part due to their confidence in general and because of Donald Trump in particular. Those Republicans pushed the overall economy rating up a bit, even as Democrats and independents rated it worse.”

Along with economics and jobs, “Republicans also see tariffs and trade as a matter of fairness and patriotism.”  And most Republicans don't want Congress involved, even though it's a Republican-controlled Congress.

(See all the charts, graphs and more numbers than even a gopher can eat here!)

While businesspeople have tended to trend Republican, key industrial, service and financial sectors largely approved of the tariff can-kick – which approval, openly expressed or not, extended to Congress (Politico, April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY TWO) even if many lawmakers “also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind.” Several pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy; Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he’s been “seeking information from the administration on who, ultimately, is helping to shape Trump’s plan.” A growing number of media-ites, especially among the financial presses, believe it was the weakening Treasury Bond status that prompted the pivot.

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Billionaires and businesspeople, especially retailers who long have marched cheap Chinese warez to middle and lower-income customers remained angry and fearful when interviewed by the liberal GUK.

These ranged from a baby-supply mercher in Minnesota now experiencing “suicidal thoughts” (April 10^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY THREE), to a quartet of Richie Richmen (April 7, ATTACHMENT THIRTY FOUR) and one outlier who has profited from the chaos and confusion.

The losers...

Elon Musk: whose estimated wealth has fallen by $130bn, although he still comfortably remains the world’s richest person, with a net worth of $302bn despite some Americans torching his Teslas...

Mark Zuckerberg: the world’s third richest (after Musk and Jeff Bezos’ $193bn) and now worth $179bn lost many of his component suppliers and customers in Asia to the tune of $28bn.

Bezos: lost $23.5bn in two days, $45bn so far this year.

Bernard Arnault: Europe’s richest (at $158bn) has lost $18.6bn this year – including “$6bn on Thursday and more than $5bn on Friday as Trump’s tariffs hit the Asian factory hubs that underpin (his) global garment industry.”

Not all billionaires have seen their net worth decrease, despite the two-day rout.

Warren Buffett, the world’s sixth richest person, (whom GUK calls the “sage of Omaha”) has seen his wealth increase by $12.7b to $155bn this year. On Friday, Trump shared a video on his social media site, Truth Social, that erroneously claimed Buffett had praised his recent economic policies. Berkshire Hathaway subsequently denied the contention and saying that comments attributed to Buffett were false.

The MAGAminions at New York’s Post reported that Trump’s base was “sticking with him” (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY FIVE) even as the liberals “were beginning to blame him for economic strife that has bubbled up during his tariff push,” according to the CBS poll (above).

Fox (ATTACHMENT THIRTY SIX) interpreted the CBS numbers as proving that Trump’s tariffs were ‘aggressive, but probably needed’ (according to “Nancy from North Carolina”) while two men from Michigan disagreed...

"They're great," ‘Steve’ said. "I think they're great for our country and going to be great for our country in the long run. Little hiccup right now, but in the long run, we'll be way better off."

"He's bullying our friends and all the country, the whole world, and he's trying to get things to change by bullying people," ‘Ford’ replied.

Biting the hand that slaps them, more liberal losers whined about the duties, ‘Shane’ complained that Trump was “...trying to take advantage of our influence in the world,” while ‘Mary’ doubted that they were “appropriate” and ‘David’ called them too “broad.”

But hope springs eternal, once spring has sprung. "In the long run, they're going to be good," contended ‘Glen’. "I think that right now we're going to feel the effects of it from the economy, but it will probably for a few months. But I think, in the longer run, it's going to work out."

The news was not very good, said the professionals. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon opined that the broad tariff program “would lead to a recession.” (1440, ATTACHMENT THIRTY SEVEN)

The good news, Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin said, is that price hikes from tariffs may not arrive until the summer “as companies work through existing inventory.” Which, of course, augurs more weeks (or months or years) of belt-tightening and higher prices thereafter until American manufacturers can catch up with the Chinese (unless they can lower labor costs via wage cuts, or robots or skimping a bit, here and there, on quality, transparency or safety).

NPR’s take on Trump’s pauses focused on his remarks at the White House – widely transmitted – that the “bond market” had factored into his decision.

"Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know. They're getting a little bit … afraid," Trump told reporters.

Earlier, in a hastily arranged gaggle with reporters outside the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted that the market chaos caused by Trump's hefty tariffs was not the reason for the policy shift.

"This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Sunday, and this was his strategy all along," Bessent told reporters. (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY EIGHT)

Bessent said China was the "biggest source" of trade issues for the United States and the rest of the world.

"I'm not calling it a trade war, but I'm saying that China has escalated, and President Trump responded very courageously to that, and we are going to work on a solution with our trading partners," he said.

Yahoo’s ‘yippy’ yokels quoted POTUS as having said: "We decided to pull the trigger and we did it today and we are happy about it," he said. "If you keep going, you are going to be back to where it was four weeks ago," he added. (ATTACHMENT THIRTY NINE)

The sharp move upward in markets came after Trump paused many tariffs but kept 10% baseline duties in place that came into effect last weekend for all countries.

That baseline does not apply to Mexico or Canada, which still face a separate set of duties related to fentanyl.

The President said this was not a negotiation by saying "sometimes it's not a negotiation until it is."

A new Yale Budget Lab study released Tuesday estimating that the tariffs could push prices up by 2.3% and translate to an average of $3,800 more in costs this year for families.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it evidence the administration is "feeling the heat" from Democrats, and claimed "irretrievable damage" had already been done to the U.S. economy – but pivoted just as the news broke.

"It's still an issue, but not today," he told the Fox (ATTACHMENT FORTY).

"Volatility in our economy is so destructive,” New York’s other Senator Kirsten Gillibrand toldPresident Trump may have paused these reciprocal tariffs, but he's maintained a 10% tariff on all of them. Businesses will now not invest in new projects or expand their workforce because they have no idea of what is coming next," Gillibrand warned.

"A 90-day pause means they don't know what's gonna happen at the end of the 90 days.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) claimed that "America First" had translated to "America alone."

"I've never seen this level of isolation of the United States as I do right now, and that is so damaging on so many different fronts," Kim claimed.

Polling from Quinnipiac University shows that 72% of voters thought the tariffs would hurt the U.S. economy in the short term. (USA Today ATTACHMENT FORTY ONE) A smaller majority (expected a long-term impact.)

Trump may have “blinked” but, reported US News (ATTACHMENT FORTY TWO), the real headache remains China, “the world’s top exporter (ahead of No. 2, the United States) and a global rival in economic, military and diplomatic terms.”

ComSec Lutnick says Donnie “expects to have conversations” with Chinese President Xi Jinping,

Chinese officials have watched Trump suddenly change his mind, and they “don’t want to own responsibility for setting Xi up to be humiliated by Trump on [the] world stage,” said Ryan Hass, a Brookings Institution scholar.

The Trump administration's 145% tariff on Chinese goods "could hardly have come at a worse time" for China, where – as Lily Kuo reported for The Washington Post – exports have been "a rare bright spot" in a struggling economy, As the U.S. accounts for about 15% of China's total exports, some financial analysts are predicting the trade war could halve the country's projected GDP growth.

“So we may be in this mess for a while,” U.S. News ventured.

A quartet of New York Timepieces blamed (or credited) the government bond yields for Trump’s reverse course on everyone but China despite his resistance to rethink the levies. (ATTACHMENT FORTY THREE)

“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he told Republicans on Tuesday as the massive tariffs he had imposed sent global markets into a tailspin. “BE COOL!” he said in a social media post Wednesday morning. “Everything is going to work out well.”

At 9:37 a.m. Wednesday, the president was still bullish on his policy, posting on Truth Social: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”

But, by that afternoon, the markets were “yippy” and, soon, the lawyers were jumping like fleas over his “yeepy” decree... the afternoon before Tax Day, Libertarians became first in line to file suit against “Liberation Day” – challenging the President’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute which provides a president with the authority to impose “necessary economic sanctions” to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” never before used to impose tariffs. (The Hill, ATTACHMENT FORTY FOUR)

“Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, told The Hill.

The Libs, conjoined with the Antonin Scalia Law School, now join Canada’s Blackfeet Nation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance to create an omnipartisan opposition to “Liberation Day.” More plaintiffs will inevitably arise.

Finally, the WashPost, yesterday, compliled a roster of American imports from China, along with an estimated value of how much each could cost Don Jones. (Attachment Forty Five).

Stephen Moore, a longtime ally of Trump’s who is co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which supports the tax cuts to benefit billionaires, worries that the tariff overload might rouse the sheeple from the sleeple.

“We’re trying to steer Trump away from some of these protectionist tariffs — the steel and aluminum tariffs, for example, are not very effective. If you want to save manufacturing jobs, this is not the way to do it,” he’d told the Post a few days earlier. “There’s danger all the tariff stuff is drowning out the tax stuff.”

We’ll take a look at the math next week and determine who’ll benefit from Trump’s Tariffs, and who will not.

See the weekly rundowns and stats here.

ATTACHMENT “B” – FROM SLATE

Joe Biden Is Waging Class Warfare Without the War

The president’s passive-aggressive leftism.

BY BEN MATHIS-LILLEY APRIL 07, 2021 3:16 PM

On March 12, President Joe Biden held a press conference with Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to celebrate the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act—ARP, for short. With his party’s other leading figures around him in the Rose Garden, discussing the first major product of their “unified” control over the executive branch and Congress, it was as close to an official mission statement as the new president has taken the opportunity to make.

After emphasizing the parts of the huge, deficit-financed spending bill that provide direct payments to low-income and middle-class Americans, Biden took a metaphorical step back to describe what he believes it accomplishes philosophically. “The bill does one more thing, which I think is really important,” he said. “It changes the paradigm.” Specifically, he said, “for the first time in a long time, this bill puts working people in this nation first.” About three weeks later, Biden went to Pittsburgh to introduce an even larger spending proposal—ostensibly related to infrastructure, but really just a plan for trying to fix everything—and said he wants it financed by tax increases on wealthy individuals and corporations.

Changing the paradigm by redistributing money from the rich to the poor and the middle class is a plan Bernie Sanders could (and does) support, described in a way that’s only a thesaurus away from Elizabeth Warren’s call for big, structural change. It’s an embrace of the kind of populism that was described for years—by people like Joe Biden—as being too divisive and disruptive to appeal to the American public as a whole. And according to the polls, the American public as a whole loves it! They’re eating it up, like a bunch of hogs!

How is he getting away with it? The answer probably involves some structural factors—the ever-widening maw of inequality and segregation that threatens to pull the American dream once and for all into its vast darkness, and such—and some good timing, courtesy of accelerating vaccine distribution and the comparative effect of having taken over from one of the worst presidents ever. But another thing that differentiates Biden from the Democrats who were considered unelectable radicals for proposing the things he’s doing is the way he talks.

Consider this thesis statement from the speech Sanders gave when he announced his 2020 campaign.

Today, I want to welcome you to a campaign which tells the powerful special interests who control so much of our economic and political life that we will no longer tolerate the greed of corporate America and the billionaire class—greed which has resulted in this country having more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth.

Sanders went on to name the enemy, or, rather, list the many enemies: “the private health insurance companies,” “the pharmaceutical industry,” “Walmart, the fast food industry, and other low-wage employers,” “corporate America,” “the fossil fuel industry,” “the prison-industrial complex,” “the top 1 percent and the large profitable corporations,” “large, multinational corporations,” and “Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the fossil fuel industry and a corrupt campaign finance system that enables billionaires to buy elections.” He used the words destroyed, attacked, slashed, and starvation, and described “greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior” in addition to “greed, hatred, and lies.” He referred three times to a “struggle,” and twice each to a “fight” and a “revolution,” using the phrase justice on its own six times and moral responsibility once.

Elizabeth Warren’s campaign announcement speech was similar, although Warren spent less time rallying moral outrage against particular depraved outcomes and more time outlining the history and mechanisms of a system she described six times as being “rigged” against the middle and working classes. Her remarks opened with a description of a strike by tens of thousands of textile workers in 1912 during which some strikers were killed, and went on to sketch out the means by which lobbyists and donors, in her telling, manipulate a corrupt government for the benefit of wealthy special interests in the present day. What united both Sanders and Warren’s visions was confrontation. The forces against them were strong, active, and irredeemable, and while they could be surmounted, it would take a fight, or a revolution.

Biden has adopted the descriptive language of the left in many ways, making frequent reference to the portion of the Trump tax cuts that benefited the top 1 percent of earners (83 percent, he says), citing the idea of “rewarding work, not wealth” as a mantra, and projecting concern for the people and groups who have been “left behind” by those “at the top.” But he hasn’t co-opted its sense of confrontation. Words he hasn’t used (in the context of American politics) since becoming president include cheat, corrupt, donor, greed, lobbyist, rigged, or structural. Twelve of the 14 times he’s said Wall Street, it’s been to suggest that its analysts support his economic vision. He has mentioned fighting for U.S. companies (“to ensure that American businesses are positioned to compete and win on the global stage”) but not against them. At his most hostile, Biden will lament the disproportionate benefits accrued by “corporations” or the misguided ideas of “my Republican friends.” (The exception to this rule is Donald Trump, whose tenure and policy objectives he mentions with a casual contempt.)

This was how Biden elaborated, at the Rose Garden event, on the trickle-down era that, in his telling, the ARP has supplanted:

For too long, it’s been the folks at the top—they’re not bad folks. A significant number of them know they shouldn’t be getting the tax breaks they had. But it put the richest Americans first, who benefited the most. The theory was—we’ve all heard it, especially the last 15 years—the theory was cut taxes on those at the top and the benefits they get will trickle down to everyone. Well, you saw what trickle-down does.

The enemy in the passage above is not a person or even an institution, but a theory. Continued the president: “This is the first time we’ve been able to—since the Johnson administration, and maybe even before that—to begin to change the paradigm.” (One wonders what the version of Joe Biden who played a role in the harsh 2005 bankruptcy bill and the top-down, too-big-to-fail bailouts of the Obama era thinks about that statement.) Then he explained how he thinks the new paradigm works.

We don’t have anything against wealthy people. You got a great idea, you’re going to go out and make millions of dollars, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But guess what? You got to pay your fair share. You got to pay something, because guess what, folks who are living on the edge—they’re paying. And so again, all it’s done is make those at the top richer in the past and everyone else fallen behind. This time, it’s time that we build an economy that grows from the bottom up and the middle out. The middle out.

And this bill shows that when you do that, everybody does better. The wealthy do better. Everybody does better across the board. If that’s our foundation, then everything we build upon will be strong. A strong foundation. Our competitiveness around the world, the jobs here at home, the health and quality of our lives. That’s what the American Rescue Plan represents. It’s all about rebuilding. What I’ve been saying, and Bernie, and a lot of others are saying, the backbone of this country, the backbone of this country are hardworking folks, hardworking folks, middle-class folks, people who built the country. And I might add, I think unions built the middle class. It’s about creating opportunity and giving people a fair shot. That’s really all and everything it’s about.

Biden describes the rollback of the trickle-down era as a conventional-wisdom no-brainer, selling it, in his March 31 speech, as a necessary step toward new achievements in national greatness that will be on par with the intercontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, and NASA. He’s turning the page, but the previous chapter is mentioned only in vague terms, as one during which few people did anything wrong, or, if they did, made anything more than a good-faith mistake. If possible, he would prefer to rebuild the middle class without talking about who destroyed it.

Biden had a front-row seat to a presidency whose agenda was held back by accusations of divisive class-warring. Those charges were largely unfair: Barack Obama was as loyal a friend as (regulated) American capitalism will ever have, and there was barely a socially liberal banker or corporate lawyer from New York City, Chicago, or D.C. whom he didn’t try to hire to work in his administration. The notion that he was unusually hostile to business depended in large part on the fact that he was Black, which made him susceptible to accusations of being radical, socialist, Muslim, secretly African, or whatever—it didn’t have to be accurate to convince some people that he wasn’t part of the American tradition as they understood it.

POPULAR IN NEWS & POLITICS

1. Alabama GOP Senate Candidate Is Extremely Outraged at Affair Allegations Before Being Presented With a 17-Minute Tape

2. The Problem With Boycotting Georgia

3. The Fight Against Trans Rights Was Never Going to Stop With Bathrooms or Sports

4. The Conservative Movement’s Favorite Legal Theory Is Rooted in Racism

As an Irish-presenting white guy, Biden began the game with an unfair advantage, but he has not squandered it. A Morning Consult poll found that voters, by a 54–33 margin, support the idea of paying for an infrastructure bill with tax increases over the idea of paying for one without tax increases or not passing one at all; a Data for Progress poll taken before Biden’s announcement framed the choice slightly differently, as one between raising taxes and cutting spending, but got similar results. While CEOs are reportedly annoyed behind the scenes about the potential for higher taxes, their public response has been polite, even helpful: JPMorgan’s analysis described Biden’s proposals as “manageable,” while Amazon’s Jeff Bezos said in a statement that his company is “supportive of a rise in the corporate tax rate.” Democrats in Congress are indicating there will be some negotiating over the form tax increases will take, but there is a consensus that they will, at some point this summer, pass an enormously redistributive spending bill and don’t expect or even fear that they will pay a political price for it.

Perhaps it was because donors, lobbyists, and special interests didn’t see what was sneaking up on them, or maybe they never cared as much about points on the margin, as they wanted to be given credit for having, at least in some sense, earned their money. But the long and short of it is that corporate America is not reacting to a Democratic president’s transformative tax-and-spend proposals as an existential threat. The battle foreseen by Sanders and Warren seems to have ended, for the most part, before it ever began, and Joe Biden won.