Make Billionaires Pay Their Taxes – ETHICAL UNICORN (2024)

Basically, being a billionaire doesn’t mean you are entitled to have a say of where your tax money goes. This implies that billionaires have more moral authority because of their wealth. In reality, it is up to elected officials to make these choices as representatives of the people.

Billionaires should encourage voting and voter registration if they truly care about how their taxes are spent, not believe they deserve special authority to decide how their money is spent because they have more privilege.

Philanthropy is not a replacement for taxes

charity is a cold, grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” It is a phrase commonly ascribed to Clement Attlee – the credit actually belongs to his biographer, Francis Beckett – but it elegantly sums up the case for progressive taxation.

(source)

We also see this in the way billionaires talk about philanthropy. It is, of course, amazing that individuals such as Bill and Melinda Gates have given away over $35 billion, spending more on global health each year than most countries and saving millions of lives. Meanwhile, other billionaires have signed up to the Giving Pledge, committing to leave half their wealth to charity (Jeff Bezos has refused to sign up for this, FYI).

But, even with these choices, philanthropy should not become a substitute for progressive taxation. Firstly, it puts the onus on the morality of the wealthy individual, assuming that they will do the right thing with their money because it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately, recent studies suggest that rich people tend to exhibit less compassion, so banking on the morality of individuals rather than enforced policy seems like a gamble that won’t pay off.

rich people and major corporations have the means to legally avoid tax. It’s estimated that global losses from multinational corporations shifting their profits are about $500bn a year, while cash stashed in tax havens is worthat least 10%of the world’s economy. It is the world’s poorest whosuffer the consequences. Philanthropy, then, is a means of making the uber rich look generous, while they save far more money through exploiting loopholes and using tax havens.

(source)

This argument is broken down very eloquently here:

Plus, the decision of philanthropic spending is made based on the interests of the philanthropist, rather than meeting the needs that need the most urgent attention.

Those choosing where the money goes are often highly unrepresentative of the broader population, and thus more likely to be out of touch with their needs. In the US,85% of charitable foundation board membersare white, and just 7% are African Americans. Money raised by progressive taxation, on the other hand, is spent by democratically accountable governments that have to justify their priorities, which are far more likely to relate to social need.

What is striking is that even as the rich get richer, they arespending less on charity, while the poor give ahigher percentage of their income to good causes.

(source)

Finally, consider the billionaire approach to climate breakdown, which they’ve known about for some time:

PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, for example, used to donate to the Seasteading Institute, which aimed to build floating cities in order to counteract rising sea levels. And Exxon Mobilallegedly knew about climate changein 1977, back when it was still just Exxon and about 11 years before climate change became widely talked about. Instead of acting on it, they started a decades-long misinformation campaign. According toScientific American, Exxon helped create the Global Climate Coalition, which questioned the scientific basis for concern over climate change from the late ’80s until 2002, and successfully worked to keep the U.S. from signing the Kyoto Protocol, a move that helped cause India and China, two other massive sources of greenhouse gas, to avoid signing…

According to Bloomberg, investors are looking to make money off of everything from revamped food production to hotels for people fleeing increasingly hurricane-ravaged areas. A top JP Morgan Asset investment strategist advised clients that sea-level rise was so inevitable that there was likely a lot of opportunity for investing in sea-wall construction.

(source)

If we wait for the whims of billionaire philanthropy to save us, there will be no saving.

Proposals such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s push for higher taxation to fund a green new deal, therefore creating systemic change based on the most pressing issues and the major concerns of the general public, could.

Inequality makes the fight to save our planet from climate breakdown even harder. Oxfam has shown that the average carbon footprint of the richest 1% globally could be as much as 175 times higher than that of the bottom 10%. To get us to a situation where everyone on earth is living on more than $5 a day with current levels of inequality would require the global economy to be 175 times bigger than it is today, which would destroy our planet. The only way we can beat poverty while saving our planet is to tackle inequality

(source)

What the UK is doing

Honestly, not much at all in comparison. In England the tax rate stops at 45% for income over £150,000, with no further policy to differentiate the ultra-wealthy from the upper-middle class. Regardless, as the Panama and Paradise papers have shown, the wealthiest in society find ways to hide money offshore, using every trick in the book to avoid actually paying their taxes. Plus, even those that are paying taxes on their income are often able to avoid a lot of tax because their wealth lies elsewhere, such as in property. When A £17m mansion in Mayfair comes with a maximum council tax bill of £1,376, it’s easy to see how people can get away with it.

And of course, unfortunately, we now have a new prime minister. Before becoming prime minister his proposals for tax cuts included raising the high earner threshold. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies this would mainly benefit richer households. Since coming to power analysis has shown nearly 80% of those who’ll benefit from Boris Johnson’s tax plan will be men and, let’s be honest, I doubt it’s a diverse group of men.

So what can we do?

The policies needed to reduce inequality are clear, including the provision of universal public services and social protection, paid for by taxation of the richest people and corporations. In too many countries, the reason these policies are not being implemented is because political leaders listen to elites and not to the demands of ordinary people. The more organized and vocal ordinary citizens are, the greater the opportunity to change this. In the 2000s, Latin America saw a dramatic decline in the level of income inequality, with governments raising taxes on the richest, increasing minimum wages, and investing in health, education and other public services. A major driving factor behind this was the power of ordinary people coming together to demand change.

(source)

This is where being politically engaged becomes key. There is an unprecedented amount of discussion around taxation going on in the USA, and candidate stance should be taken into account when making voting decisions. I believe each presidential candidate’s approach to taxes will tell you a lot about their real views in other areas too. If they’re in the pockets of rich lobbyists, are they really going to try and end fossil fuels? Or implement gun control? Or make healthcare more accessible? Tax policy is inherently tied with reducing inequality and is therefore linked to most other pressing social issues, candidates who will actually implement policy to change things will also have a strong plan for taxes too.

It’s also vital that, beyond voting for president, US residents research other names on their ballots, as more localised elections can be just as, if not more, important when it comes to creating change. You can get involved in your local area by volunteering for or donating to political campaigns, encouraging voter registration, and looking into how you can help educate and spread these ideas within your community.

If you are based in the USA I specifically recommend you check out Future Now, a group who were essential to Democrats flipping a total of seven chambers in 2018 and making gains in more than a dozen others. They’ve set their sights on multiple states for upcoming elections, meaning they provide great ways for you to get involved in key areas with focused, strategic ways to have the largest impact.

In the UK, while there is currently no election coming up (but honestly anything could happen at this point), this is also a time when getting involved in local politics is more important than ever. Boris Johnson’s government only has a working majority of one in the House of Commons, which already makes his tax plans more unlikely to come to fruition. But, beyond this, if local MPs are truly in touch with the people they represent, this can influence the way they vote and advocate within parliament. And if they don’t support progressive taxation? Don’t vote for them. At this point it’s easy for Johnson to lose that majority, and then there’s everything to play for.

When it comes to corporations, we all know I have a particular distaste for companies who don’t pair their fair share of tax. If you want to get involved in pushing for companies to pay their tax, or if you’re a business owner who is paying their taxes, check out Fair Tax Mark to learn how you can get involved.

I know that these are complicated matters, and I know that to some extent changing policies like this also requires us to rely on democratic systems that may not always be as fair as we would hope. But be encouraged, it only takes 3.5% of the population to ensure serious political change.

And the best part? We have had these policies in place before.Regardless of what billionaires want you to believe, these policies worked, and they made economic sense. These are not unrealistic ideals that will bring society to its knees. These are tried and tested, and quality of life was better. We have the data, and it can’t be ignored. So we can get there again, we can narrow the gap of inequality once more. We just need to talk about this more and push for it.