inequality
Former World Leaders Push G20 to Set Global Wealth Tax on Billionaires
"We need a world in which the wealthiest are taxed in every country, and not allowed to dictate the rules for their own benefit," the former president of Chile said.
Former world leaders on Thursday called on the Group of 20 to follow through on a Brazilian proposal to enact a minimum wealth tax on billionaires.
In an open letter, 19 members of the Club de Madrid, a group of former presidents and prime ministers, urged G20 leaders to act on the proposal, calling it a "rare strategic opportunity" to address "extreme inequality" across the world and the inequities in governance systems that have made it so that billionaires "pay a lower tax rate than teachers and cleaners."
"Billionaires, globally, are paying a tax rate equivalent to less than 0.5% of their wealth," the letter, which Oxfam helped coordinate, states. "Trillions of dollars that could have been productively invested in communities, education, health, and infrastructure have instead been unproductively accumulated by the ultra-wealthy."
Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile and a signatory to the letter, echoed the need for global action in a statement that accompanied the letter. "We need a world in which the wealthiest are taxed in every country, and not allowed to dictate the rules for their own benefit," she said. "Brazil is showing us how."
🚨Open letter signed by 19 former presidents and prime ministers: we need a coordinated tax on the super rich, now!https://t.co/g71bC4SgJr
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) July 11, 2024
Brazil, which currently holds the rotating G20 presidency, proposed the minimum wealth tax in February, suggesting the revenues could be used to fund clean energy transitions in the Global South. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government tasked Gabriel Zucman, a left-wing economist based at the Paris School of Economics and the University of California, Berkeley, with developing the plan, a blueprint of which he released last month.
Zucman, founder of the EU Tax Observatory, calls for a 2% annual tax on billionaire wealth, which he said would raise $200 billion to $250 billion per year from about 3,000 individuals. More tax revenue could be raised if the levy applied to individuals with a net worth above $100 million, he said.
A raft of research on extreme inequality and inequitable tax policy has emerged in recent years, by Zucman and others. An Oxfam report from February found that a yearslong "war on fair taxation" in G20 countries led the wealthiest 1% to have their tax rates slashed by one-third over the last few decades.
Brazil's proposal has gained some momentum in recent months, drawing support from France and the International Monetary Fund. The general public in G20 countries strongly supports a wealth tax, a survey released last month shows.
However, the proposal has faced setbacks. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed opposition in May, drawing criticism from progressive groups; last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) pushed the administration to support the G20 proposal. Germany's finance minister also said his government was skeptical.
Such leaders will have to be convinced if the plan is to move forward. The Club de Madrid letter praises the Biden administration for a proposal it made in March to increase taxes on U.S. corporations and billionaires, but warns that such taxes in individual countries will not be fully effective, as "global capital does not respect national borders." If one country enacts a wealth tax, billionaires can move their money to more advantageous jurisdictions.
"Tax avoidance and evasion by the ultra-rich succeeds when governments fail to work together," the letter says. "We need global cooperation."
A global minimum wealth tax would strengthen national efforts, reducing inequality and helping governments raise money for much-needed social initiatives, the authors argue. It would also lay the groundwork for further international cooperation.
"A global deal to tax the ultra-rich would be a shot in the arm for multilateralism: proving that governments can come together for the common good," the letter says.
The former presidents and prime ministers cite another recent international tax project—to establish a global minimum tax (GMT) on corporations—as a model. More than 100 countries, including the U.S., agreed on the GMT in 2021 and its implementation is ongoing. It's expected to raise $220 billion more in tax revenues annually, which can be used for social services.
The G20 includes 19 major countries, the European Union, and the African Union. Its next major summit will be in Rio de Janeiro in November.
Immigration—the Dangerous Distraction
The issue is being used by economic elites as a powerful tool to shift our attention away from the real roots of crises, both economic and political.
In the presidential debate Donald Trump cast himself as our great protector against dangerous immigrants including the “insane” and “terrorists” who take our jobs and commit crimes. A top advisor reports that Trump plans to increase deportation 10-fold.
Such charges aren’t new. The terms “threat” and “immigration” have together soared through our media since the ‘90s. To many Americans it’s seemed self-evident that “others” are robbing us of opportunity, draining our resources, and even inflicting immediate harm.
But these charges are wrong, completely wrong.
Immigration is being used by economic elites as a powerful tool to shift our attention away from the real roots of crises, both economic and political. Plus, casting immigration as a crisis blinds us to the multiple ways immigrants contribute to our national well-being.
First, the basics. Immigrants—more than half of which are naturalized citizens—make up about 14 percent of our population. And they are an even bigger share of our civilian labor force— 19 percent.
Thus, they do a lot to keep our economy going—generating $1.6 trillion in spending power. Immigrants also contribute to the public good, paying $579 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. That’s a lot! It is over three-quarters of what we spend each year on defense, which is among our largest national expenditures.
Of course, millions more Americans are children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants—as am I—which has been a source of America’s pride.
Blaming immigrants... harms not only them but virtually all of us.
Yes, our foreign-born population has been increasing, but barely. Between 2020 and 2022 the percent of foreign-born grew one point, reports the U.S. Census Bureau.
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), between 2019 and 2023, our immigrant labor force grew yearly on average 2.3 percent; yet there’s no evidence of harm to the native-born, as our economy has also been growing. In fact, EPI also found that for U.S.-born workers, 2022-2023 was a time of “very low unemployment—and strong employment growth.” Robust growth continues to exceed expectations.
And what about the claim that immigrants are “taking” jobs, especially of the less-educated?
This, too, is misleading, as immigrants without a high school diploma fill very different jobs than comparable native-born Americans. Immigrants typically take jobs as maids and house cleaners, cooks, and agricultural workers. In California, for example, 69 percent of farmworkers are migrants. By contrast, native-born Americans with no high school education are apt to be cashiers, truck drivers, janitors, and building cleaners.
Among undocumented workers, the largest share of work is in agriculture, construction, administrative support, and tourism, hospitality, and food service.
In rural Ohio, I once had the opportunity to speak with such workers, and my heart broke as one woman expressed bewilderment at how she was treated. “Why don’t people here respect us?” she asked me. “We bring you your food.”
Some worry also that immigrants increase crime, but data doesn’t confirm this fear: From 1990 to 2013 unauthorized immigration tripled while the U.S. crime rates fell by almost half.
Furthermore, over decades unauthorized immigrants have proven to be less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, reports Northwestern University. And their incarceration rates are also lower. Among young, less-educated men from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador—who are a large share of undocumented immigrants—incarceration rates are at most about a quarter that of the native-born. Some studies also find delinquency rates of immigrant youth to be lower than their native peers.
Trump has charged repeatedly that immigrants drain Social Security, when the opposite is true. Almost all undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes into Social Security and Medicare. From 2004 to 2014, they paid over $100 billion into Social Security alone.
Yet, immigrants are not allowed to access the Social Security into which they’ve paid.
Note, too, that most immigrants by far are documented. In 2022, the undocumented were only a bit over one-fifth of all immigrants and added no more than 3 percent of our population. Yet, they contributed over $35 billion in taxes. Refugees make up an even smaller segment of the population and pay over $30 billion in taxes each year.
Trump’s proposed mass deportation of undocumented workers would strike a huge blow to the American economy. Our GDP would shrink by about $1.6 trillion, triggering a 5.7 percent decline in the economy while costing the U.S. government about $400 billion.
Moreover, offering current undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship would add $116 billion in federal tax revenue, $68 billion in state and local tax revenue. GDP would grow by $1.7 trillion over the next decade.
Plus, it’s false to assume that jobs vacated by deported immigrants would be filled by the native-born. After Arizona passed its restrictive SB 1070 law in 2008, the overall number of jobs shrank by 2.5 percent by 2015, and only 10 percent of vacated jobs had been filled by the native-born.
So, let’s spread the word that many Americans are struggling not because of immigrants taking their jobs and using up their resources. The real threat is the worsening and highly alarming concentrations of wealth and income in our country—more extreme here than in over 100 nations. The top 1 percent of Americans control 30.4 percent of the wealth. Just 806 billionaires hold more wealth than the entire bottom half of all Americans.
Such concentration continues because of our corrupt political system allowing big donors and private-interest lobbyists way too much power. Here, too, we are an outlier among our peer nations.
Blaming immigrants is thus a dangerous distraction. It harms not only them but virtually all of us. It distracts us from digging to the root causes of illegal immigration—extreme poverty, gang violence, and autocratic governments.
So let us redirect attention from false blame to face the truly critical challenges of fixing our democracy—via initiatives such as Equal Citizens—and to assume leadership internationally to address the root causes of poverty driving immigration.
The Biden-Trump Rematch Reflects a Democratic System in Terminal Decline
Is this the twilight of the cultish mythology of so-called "Great Men"?
This phenomenon reflects a contemporary belief in the outsized power of elite individuals—whether CEOs, celebrities, or political leaders—to drive change and shape the world around them. It's a worldview that has its roots in neoliberal ideology but has morphed into something more extreme: a "cult of personality" that justifies massive inequality and the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of a small oligarchic class.
The recent Trump-Biden debate served as a grotesque apotheosis of "great man" politics, laying bare the dangerous fallacy of entrusting democracy to the outsized personalities of flawed individuals. What viewers witnessed was not a substantive exchange of ideas, but a sad spectacle of two men desperately clinging to the illusion of their own indispensability.
Trump, the self-styled political outsider, once again displayed his mastery of demagoguery. His performance was a masterclass in manipulative rhetoric, weaving lies and exaggerations to inflame passions and sow doubt. This wasn't leadership, but a naked display of ego—a man willing to risk democratic norms and institutions to maintain his grip on power and protect his wealth.
The recent Trump-Biden debate served as a grotesque apotheosis of "great man" politics, laying bare the dangerous fallacy of entrusting democracy to the outsized personalities of flawed individuals.
Opposite him, Biden struggled to articulate coherent responses, his words often faltering and confused. The toll of age was unmistakable, raising uncomfortable questions about his fitness for office. Yet Biden's insistence on seeking reelection, despite these obvious challenges, betrays the same hubris that drives Trump - a belief that he alone can guide the nation through troubled waters.
This debate didn't showcase great men rising to meet history's challenges. Instead, it revealed the bankruptcy of personality-driven politics. Here were two deeply flawed individuals, propped up by cults of personality, vying for the right to single-handedly shape America's future.
In its most degenerate form, as we're witnessing now, this results in the sad spectacle of a democratic election devolving into little more than the narcissistic desire of two powerful old men to cling to power and relevance, even as they and the system they represent show clear signs of terminal decline.
The Roots of "Great Man" Democracy
The notion that history is shaped primarily by the actions of exceptional individuals—usually men—is nothing new. The "Great Man theory" of history, popularized by 19th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, posited that the progress of civilization could be understood as a series of heroic deeds by extraordinary figures.
This idea fell out of favor among academic historians in the 20th century, as more structural and systemic approaches to understanding historical change gained prominence. But remnants of Great Man thinking have persisted in popular culture and political discourse.
The neoliberal turn in politics and economics beginning in the 1980s breathed new life into Great Man ideology. By fetishizing individualism and promoting the idea that anyone could succeed through hard work and talent, neoliberalism created fertile ground for the worship of ultra-successful individuals.
Figures like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos came to be seen not just as talented businessmen, but as visionaries reshaping entire industries through sheer force of will and genius. Their massive wealth accumulation was justified as a natural result of their exceptional abilities and contributions to society.
In the political realm, this manifested as the rise of the celebrity politician and the increasing personalization of political movements. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher became iconic figures whose personal charisma and ideological certainty were seen as key to pushing through sweeping changes. This trend has only accelerated in recent decades.
From Individualism to Personality Cults
What started as a celebration of individualism, however, has metastasized into something more extreme and potentially dangerous: full-blown personality cults built around powerful elites. No longer content to simply admire successful individuals, large swathes of the public now look to them as messianic figures capable of single-handedly solving complex societal problems.
Trump is more a symptom than a cause. The broader trend towards personality-driven politics is evident across the political spectrum and around the world.
This shift serves to further justify extreme inequality and the concentration of wealth and power. If we believe that only exceptional individuals can truly change the world, it follows that we should grant them exceptional resources and authority to do so. The end result is a self-reinforcing cycle of oligarchy, with a small elite accumulating ever more wealth and influence while selling themselves as indispensable leaders.
Nowhere is this perhaps more evident than in the realm of politics, where elections increasingly revolve around the cults of personality built up around individual candidates rather than coherent ideologies or policy platforms. Donald Trump is perhaps the most extreme example of this phenomenon in recent American history. His supporters' devotion often seems to transcend politics, taking on an almost religious fervor.
But Trump is more a symptom than a cause. The broader trend towards personality-driven politics is evident across the political spectrum and around the world. From Narendra Modi in India to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Boris Johnson in the UK, charismatic populists have risen to power by positioning themselves as messianic figures who alone can solve their nation's problems.
Even more technocratic leaders like Emmanuel Macron in France have leaned heavily on personal brand and charisma, presenting themselves as uniquely talented individuals rather than representatives of broader movements or ideologies.
The Biden-Trump Rematch: Great Men in Decline
Which brings us to the current U.S. presidential election and the rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. On the surface, these two men could hardly be more different in temperament, background, and vision for the country. And yet, their contest represents the culmination of the trend towards Great Man politics, albeit in an particularly stark and perhaps tragic form.
Both men have built their campaigns around their personal brands and the cults of personality they've cultivated. For Trump, this revolves around his image as a politically incorrect outsider who alone can "drain the swamp" and restore American greatness. Biden, meanwhile, leans heavily on his persona as a steady, experienced hand who can restore normalcy and decency to the presidency.
Policy differences certainly exist between the two, but they often take a back seat to questions of character, toughness, and mental fitness. The election is being framed less as a contest between competing visions for America's future and more as a choice between two men who each claim to be uniquely capable of leading the nation through troubled times.
Rather than a clash of titans at the height of their powers, the election risks becoming a sad spectacle of two men desperately clinging to relevance and authority even as their faculties visibly decline.
This personalization of politics serves to obscure the deeper structural issues facing American democracy and society. By focusing on the qualities of individual leaders, we lose sight of the systemic problems that no single person, no matter how talented or well-intentioned, can solve alone.
Moreover, there's a profound irony in the fact that this contest between supposed "great men" is being waged by two candidates who many view as past their prime. Both Biden and Trump are near 80 years old and have faced persistent questions about their mental acuity and physical stamina. Rather than a clash of titans at the height of their powers, the election risks becoming a sad spectacle of two men desperately clinging to relevance and authority even as their faculties visibly decline.
This, perhaps more than anything, lays bare the hollowness of Great Man politics in its current form. The cults of personality built up around individual leaders have become so entrenched that they persist even when those leaders are clearly not up to the task of governance. Democracy supposedly demands great men, even when there are none to be found.
A System in Terminal Decline
The fixation on Biden and Trump as individuals obscures a more fundamental truth: the political and economic system they represent is itself showing clear signs of terminal decline. Inequality continues to skyrocket, with a tiny elite hoarding an ever-larger share of society's wealth. Trust in institutions is at historic lows. Political polarization has reached toxic levels. And looming crises like climate change threaten to overwhelm our capacity for collective action.
In this context, the quest to find a singular great leader to solve all our problems is not just misguided - it's actively harmful. It distracts from the need for broad-based movements and structural reforms. It discourages civic engagement by suggesting that change can only come from the top down. And it sets us up for perpetual disappointment when these supposedly transformative leaders inevitably fail to live up to impossible expectations.
The fixation on Biden and Trump as individuals obscures a more fundamental truth: the political and economic system they represent is itself showing clear signs of terminal decline.
The tragedy of the current election is that it represents a doubling down on this failed approach. Rather than stepping back and reassessing the underlying assumptions of our political system, we're treated to another round of Great Man competition—this time between two candidates who seem particularly ill-suited to the role.
This is not to say that leadership is unimportant or that all politicians are interchangeable. But we must move beyond the notion that any one individual can single-handedly solve the complex, interconnected challenges facing modern societies. Real change requires collective action, institution building, and a long-term commitment to reforming broken systems.
Beyond the Cult of Personality
So where do we go from here? How can we move beyond the cult of personality in politics and rebuild a healthier, more robust democracy?
Crucially, we need to consciously resist the allure of simple narratives built around charismatic individuals. This means looking beyond soundbites and cultivating a deeper understanding of policy issues and systemic problems. It means being skeptical of grandiose promises and messianic rhetoric from any political figure.
As we watch two aged politicians compete for the chance to lead a nation in crisis, let it serve as a wake-up call. The era of great men is over.
We must also reinvigorate local and community-level political engagement. Change doesn't just come from the top—it bubbles up from the grassroots. By getting involved in local government, community organizations, and issue-based movements, citizens can have a real impact without waiting for a great leader to solve everything.
Finally, we need structural reforms to our political system that dilute the outsized influence of wealthy individuals and encourage a more diverse range of voices in the political process. This could include campaign finance reform, ranked choice voting, and other measures to break the two-party duopoly.
The future of democracy, in the U.S. and beyond, depends on our ability to move beyond the cult of personality and reclaim politics as a collective endeavor. The alternative—a continued descent into gerontocratic oligarchy thinly disguised as populism—is too dire to contemplate. As we watch two aged politicians compete for the chance to lead a nation in crisis, let it serve as a wake-up call. The era of great men is over. The real work of rebuilding our democracy is just beginning.