Tag: taxes
Going Nowhere, Or Learning To Ignore The Plutocrats Who Cried 'Commie!'

Going Nowhere, Or Learning To Ignore The Plutocrats Who Cried 'Commie!'


The reaction of plutocrats to the Zohran Mamdani campaign — histrionic freakout before the mayoral election, with promises to flee New York City if he won, followed by a big “never mind” when he did — can teach us a couple of things.


First, ignore billionaires when they threaten to take their marbles and go home. The big money always responds to threats of tax hikes, or even mere verbal criticism, by threatening to go all Ayn Rand and move to Galt’s Gulch. In reality, they won’t even move to Florida.

You may recall that a couple of years ago there was a lot of talk about how the financial industry was going to flee blue-state taxes and wokeness and move to Miami. And to be fair, some companies did move. Notably, Ken Griffin, a hedge-fund billionaire and a big Trump backer, made a splash when he did indeed move the global headquarters of Citadel and Citadel Securities from Chicago to Miami.

But the second headline above comes from a CNBC report on remarks from top commercial real estate executives, who see Mamdani having little impact on booming demand for offices in New York. This includes plans by Griffin to rent substantial space in a new building at 350 Park Avenue. “Ken is committed and will have more employees at 350 Park than in Miami,” said one executive.

Why won’t plutocrats flee New York? For one thing, they’re not stupid (although they were hoping that voters were.) Mamdani might — might — be able to raise their taxes a bit. But they don’t really believe that free buses and city-run grocery stores will turn one of America’s safest cities into a post-apocalyptic landscape. And New York will retain formidable advantages thanks to agglomeration economies — the advantages of locating a business where many other related businesses are concentrated.

As Bloomberg put it,

For workers in finance and a range of other industries, no technology has so far replaced New York’s longstanding specialty, the face-to-face chat. In-person meetings remain essential for sniffing out who you can trust, what deals might be brewing and which rumors to believe. And from Wall Street to the United Nations, nowhere pulls together more gossip and more elite decision-makers.

This isn’t just a New York strength. There was a West Coast analog to the hype about Miami becoming the new Wall Street: For a while there was a lot of chatter about Silicon Valley fleeing California’s taxes and regulations by decamping to Austin. But the Austin boom has fizzled as companies that moved there found that not being located in a giant tech hub put them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.

New York also happens to be a great place to live if you can afford housing — which the wealthy can. The central city has much higher effective population density than any other city in America, which in turn supports a range of amenities — restaurants, shops, museums, shows and concerts, and more — that you can’t find anywhere else. This doesn’t matter to the ultrawealthy who use their wealth to wall themselves off in a private universe. But for the merely very, very rich, there’s no place like it. Bloomberg again:

For all the angst about New York City these days, it’s remarkable how well things are going. Broadway houses are fuller than ever. The subways are getting busier and safer. The population is rising again, and the city’s economy seems to have held up well this year as Wall Street pay soars and tax revenue comes in strong.

Now, New York isn’t such a great place to live if you aren’t very affluent. Why? The problem isn’t crime, which is historically low. Nor is it the large number of immigrants, who clearly make the city better in many ways. No, it’s all about affordability, especially the cost of housing.

Mamdani won his remarkable victory largely by promising to address affordability. Whether he can do much to improve it remains to be seen: A New York mayor has very limited power, and the obstacles to doing what needs to be done, above all building a lot more housing, are formidable.

But one problem Mamdani won’t face is a mass exodus of the people who yelled “Commie!” before the election. When will we learn not to take plutocratic whining seriously?

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks

Boasting About 'No Tax On Tips,' Iowa Republican Caught Tipping...$3

Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks (R-IA) made an unassuming stop at bar in Iowa County, where she celebrated the new “No Tax on Tips” provision.

In a post on the social platform X Monday, she posted her picture at the bar and wrote, “Made a pit stop in Iowa County for lunch at Sun Down Bar and Grill. I got to celebrate No Tax on Tips with our wonderful server, she’s thrilled about this provision and excited to keep more of what she earns!”

Social media users pounced on the details in the photo, pointing out that she left just a $3 tip.

Journalist Matt Fuller wrote: "Is she — is she tipping $3?"

Blake Allen, an attorney, wrote: "Kinda hilarious that she’s tipping $3 by leaving exact change. I’m not saying this is why she’s a horrible underperformer in basically every political race she’s ever run in, but it’s a solid indication of why she does."

Journalist Pablo Manríquez wrote: "$2.81 tip are you effing kidding me??? This lady makes makes $174,000 per year!!!"

"Such a generous $3 tip!!! Maybe don’t post your 'generosity' on social media," wrote a user.

The “No Tax on Tips” provision, part of broader GOP-backed tax initiatives under the Trump administration, lifts federal income taxation on a portion of tip income, aiming to put more cash in the pockets of workers. But the plan raises concerns about its long-term impact on the federal deficit and its uneven benefit across income levels.

Supporters argue it boosts morale and reduces job churn, while critics point out that many low-wage workers already pay little to no income tax and that the exemption could disproportionately benefit higher-net tip earners.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump Tariffs

Trump's Tariffs Are Actually A Tax That Democrats Can Cut

As usual, the New York Times gets things exactly wrong in a piece headlined “Trump’s Tariffs are Making Money. That May Make Them Hard to Quit.” The gist of the article is that the tariffs are on a path to raise close to $400 billion a year, and possibly considerably more, depending on where Trump ends up with his trade “deals.”

While this is in fact a very substantial sum, it makes for an obvious campaign issue for Democrats in 2026 and 2028. They can promise a huge tax cut to ordinary workers.

At $400 billion, the tariffs come to an average of more than $3,000 per household annually. The Democrats can promise a large tax cut to working and middle-class families by rolling back the tariffs. They can offset much of the revenue loss by reversing Trump’s tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for ordinary people, paid for by higher taxes on the rich, is likely to be a very appealing campaign platform.

The Democrats will also have an advantage in going this route as a result of the fact that Trump will already have the tariffs in effect. Many Democrats, especially union members, have supported tariffs with the idea that they will bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs.

It is almost inconceivable that Trump’s tariffs will bring back any substantial number of manufacturing jobs, and the ones that do come back are not likely to be especially good paying. Historically, manufacturing jobs were high paying because the sector was heavily unionized. This is no longer the case, the manufacturing sector is only slightly more heavily unionized than the rest of the private sector; 8.0 percent in manufacturing compared to 6.0 percent in the rest of the private sector. As a result manufacturing jobs are not likely to pay more than jobs in other sectors.

With the tariffs in effect, workers will be able to see that this is not an effective route for creating good-paying jobs. Therefore, there should be less resistance to rolling them back.

It is also worth reminding folks, especially people who write major articles on economic issues at the New York Times, how tariffs work. They get revenue for the government by raising the prices of things we buy. That means reducing tariffs will lower prices.

The political experts who wrote about the last election all told us that the main reason the Democrats lost was that people hated inflation. This meant that even though most people actually had increases in wages that outpaced prices, they were still angry at Biden and the Democrats because things they bought cost most.

If inflation is very bad news politically, then presumably Donald Trump and the Republicans will be paying a big price for the inflation that is coming about as a result of their tariffs. That would seem to provide a great political opening for the Democrats. Just as Trump scored political points with his promise to bring prices down on day one, the Democrats should be able to score political points by promising to lower prices, but this time with a real plan: cutting tariffs.

It’s true that reducing or eliminating the Trump tariffs may raise the deficit if the tariff reduction is not fully offset by the increased taxes on the rich, but no one seems to vote based on deficits. At least that has been the track record for the last half century. Republicans were not punished for big increases in the deficit under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and Democrats were not rewarded for substantial amounts of deficit reduction under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The pundit class may get upset, but why should anyone care?

In short, the political warnings in this article are 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Trump tariffs should create a huge political opening for Democrats in future elections.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Trump's Assault On Harvard Endangers Every American's Freedom

Trump's Assault On Harvard Endangers Every American's Freedom

The question for the last three months has been, when will it end? The question today is, will there be anything left?

Every day, this country and our freedom suffer another body blow. Tonight, news landed that after Harvard University rejected demands for federal control of its academic life, the Treasury Department is taking steps to end its tax-exempt status. This, after the Trump administration has frozen some $2 billion in grants and cancelled outright $60 million in federal contracts with the university, with threats to cancel the remainder of Harvard’s $9 billion in federal grants.

This is a partial list of Trump’s blackmail demands:

Harvard must agree to “shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government.”

Harvard must submit to the government auditing “the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity” and hiring and admissions so that “every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.” It’s unintelligible gibberish, but their “viewpoint diversity” means the end of free thought at Harvard.

“The University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” as defined by Donald Trump.

“The University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs.”

There were other demands rejected by Harvard, including that “governance” of the university be altered so that those in charge must be “committed to the changes indicated in this letter.” That means Harvard leaders must do what Trump demands or else.

A letter posted on the university’s X account put the position of Harvard this way: “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.”

Other universities such as Columbia and Northwestern have been subject to similar threats and caved into Trump’s demands. The administration is said to have a list of other universities upon which it will make similar demands.

Harvard is such an enormously wealthy institution that they recently announced that students from families making $200 thousand or less yearly would be given free tuition. Harvard is said to have an endowment in excess of $50 billion and doubtlessly has enough billionaires among its alumni to keep the place going – even thriving – for at least the next hundred years.

So why should we worry about Harvard at a time when our country is beset daily by these horrors, among many others:

American citizens as well as undocumented migrants are being snatched off the street and sent to interment camps in Louisiana and El Salvador.

There are new plans to send undocumented arrestees with no criminal records to detention in Guantanamo.

Tens of thousands of federal employees, including those serving in harms way overseas, have been summarily fired without notice on false premises.

Budgets of departments like Health and Human Services are scheduled for cuts of as much as 40 percent and entire federal departments such as USAID have been shut down without Congressional authorization.

The entire weight of the federal government is being wielded daily against organizations such as Planned Parenthood, and individuals from Trump’s first administration he doesn’t like have been threatened with criminal investigation and prosecution by the Department of Justice.

The attorney general of New York state has been referred for criminal prosecution under federal law. Threats to prosecute former President Joe Biden and his family have been made repeatedly by Trump and hang in the balance.

Multiple law firms have been threatened with loss of security clearances and access to federal buildings necessary to represent their clients.

Defiance of court orders by the Trump administration, including those of Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court, are a daily occurrence.

With all of this going on, it seems silly to worry about the wealthiest college in the country, doesn’t it?

No. Harvard is just one more brick in the wall of fascism being constructed around all of us. The demands on Harvard, now spelled out in an official document signed by a deputy commissioner of the General Services Administration, the General Counsel of the Department of Education, and the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services – all acting on the orders of Donald Trump – are written evidence of the imposition of thought police of a an authoritarian regime.

The next step after such demands is arrest on spurious charges; after that is imprisonment; the next step in the dark stairs leading to dictatorship is arrest without charges, already being used against migrants with no criminal record, some with protected immigration status; down at the bottom of the stairs is imprisonment without trial and conviction; we know from reading history that is less than a decade older than I am what is next: torture, disappearance, death.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland flew to El Salvador today and his request to see Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran migrant renditioned to a prison known for torturing inmates, was at first denied. The Democratic senator was later permitted to briefly visit with Abrego Garcia in a San Salvador hotel.

Until Van Hollen forced the issue by showing up in El Salvador, we and his family had no way of knowing whether Garcia was alive or dead. Not even the Supreme Court has been able to compel Donald Trump to return him from imprisonment in El Salvador that the court has ruled is “illegal.”

It starts with people who are poor without proper “papers.” It starts with those who have skin that is not white or those who are not heterosexual or their gender identity is different from the one listed on their birth certificate. It starts with those from another neighborhood or another religion. It starts with them. Then it’s Harvard. Then it’s us.

We are in the terrible place history has recorded so well and that we ignore at our peril.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World