Kevin Gosztola: Report Calls Attention To Capitalism’s Destruction Of The Press And Media System
December 20, 2025
By Kevin Gosztola, The Dissenter, 12/9/25
With Netflix’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount’s hostile offer for Warner Bros., a report from the Roosevelt Institute calls urgent attention to the way in which media consolidation and deregulation has impacted freedom of the press.
The Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, contends that the press clause in the First Amendment has all but disappeared. Instead, it is now widely accepted in government that the First Amendment defines the “freedom of private entities to operate without public accountability, rather than the right to know—citizens’ affirmative right to freely accessible, trustworthy, and democratically essential information.”
“The Political Economy of the US Media System” [PDF] was authored by Victor Pickard, a media professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bilal Baydoun and Shahrzad Shams of the Roosevelt Institute, whose work for the Roosevelt Institute focuses on defending democracy.
As the authors outline, “[T]he structure of our laissez-faire media system—touted as a bulwark against the tyranny of state-run media—has not protected against threats from the state. Both public and commercial media outlets today face serious threats from the Trump administration beyond regulatory action alone, as it has pursued lawsuits widely believed to be ideologically motivated against the BBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal and defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”
“The administration has launched what amounts to a systematic campaign against press freedom, combining legal harassment, access restrictions, funding cuts, and rhetorical attacks to undermine independent journalism. While Trump himself has long delegitimized the press as ‘fake news,’ the current assault, backed by the power of the federal government and all the resources at its disposal, is an escalation that threatens the institutional foundations of American journalism.”
Subscribe To The Dissenter
The authors maintain that part of this escalation involves “rule by deal over rule of law,” where “commercial logics that animate our media system” subject media companies to “political jawboning, threats, and attacks.”
In 2004, media scholar and media reform advocate Robert McChesney declared, “Unique problems accompany constitutional protection of a free press.” He pointed out that these problems “tend to be shunted aside when the discussion is framed solely in terms of free speech.” That serves market capitalism, however, the report addresses how this is inconsistent with “both the intent of the framers and the history of the US press system.”
The authors focus their attention on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices have time and time again nested press rights under the speech clause or failed to even grapple with the state of press freedom.
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has “interpreted the Speech Clause not as a tool for empowering everyday people to speak their mind and enjoy access to a diversity of viewpoints, but as a vehicle for advancing deregulatory, corporate causes.”
A prime example is the lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Co-filed by then-Representative J.D Vance, according to the Lever News emphasizes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues “party-coordinated contribution limits violate their free speech rights.”
“Precluding coordination by parties and their candidates undermines the availability and accuracy of electoral communication,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared. “In this way, free association, free expression, and free enterprise are deeply intertwined.”
Subscribe to The Dissenter
To the report’s authors, this represents a negative approach to the First Amendment that fails to fully protect press rights. This approach serves powerful corporate interests by declining to affirm any government obligation to enact policies that would “foster a speech environment or press system that supports a vibrant and inclusive democratic society.”
“In prioritizing the expressive rights of corporations over the informational rights of citizens, viewing the press as functionally the same as an individual speaker, the court has entrenched a deregulatory logic that structurally favors concentrated media power and commercial gatekeeping,” the report additionally states.
This dynamic fuels pressure on media organizations and makes companies vulnerable to threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who has weaponized regulatory action to suppress journalism and silence those who speak out against the Trump administration.
It was the “neoliberal revolution” that by the 1980s led the FCC to allow “market forces” to effectively determine what was in the public interest. FCC Chair Mark Fowler referred to a television as nothing more than a “toaster with pictures” and “recast the media audience from citizens fulfilling the role of self-government to consumers of a good like any other.” All of which was backed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought about one of the most intense periods of media consolidation in the history of the telecommunications industry. That set the stage for the corporate libertarian policies promoted by Trump’s FCC.
But in the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FCC actually had the “Mayflower rule” that “prohibited broadcasters from engaging in political or partisan editorializing.” There were “structural limits on ownership and contracts” that were aimed at ensuring the media played a constructive role in democracy. Media ownership rules weren’t a tool for extracting political favors, and the Supreme Court even upheld such public interest regulation in NBC v. United States in 1943.
Anti-communism hysteria combined with corporate libertarianism, as Congress and the FBI scrutinized members of the FCC. “The leading progressive at the FCC, Clifford Durr, effectively resigned from the agency in 1948 in protest over President Harry S. Truman’s loyalty oath order.”
The Mayflower rule was replaced in 1949 after political attacks. The new rule was known as the “Fairness Doctrine.” It was imperfect, yet much like public broadcasting in the United States it was relentlessly opposed by a right-wing conservative faction until Reagan eliminated it entirely.
Subscribe to The Dissenter
Trump proudly defunded public media, particularly the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). It’s a predictable outcome, given how Republicans waged a decades-long culture war to discredit and curtail public service broadcasting.
As McChesney outlined in 1997, “[T]he attack on public service broadcasting is part and parcel of the current attack on all non-commercial, public service institutions and values.”
“Neoliberalism is not merely a set of economic principles; rather, it is implicitly a theory of democracy. And the democratic system that works best with a market-driven economy is one where there exists widespread public cynicism and depoliticization, and where the mainstream political parties barely debate the fundamental issues.”
“Or, as the Financial Times has put it, the best political system is one in which the capitalist control of society is ‘depoliticised,’” McChesney further asserted.
Media oligarchs have wildly succeeded in expanding their dominance and power in a manner that threatens the stability of the press and media system. Just look at what private equity has done to destroy local journalism in communities throughout the country.
Already in 2025, media oligarchs Larry Ellison and David Ellison took control of Paramount Global when their company Skydance merged with Paramount. There should be some call from within the FCC against the Ellison family’s attempt to own even more of the media system, but the opposite is happening. (The Associated Press reported that “an investment firm run by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner” is pushing for the deal.)
The history and analysis laid out by the Roosevelt Institute is a worthwhile plea for a radical shift that enables “a truly democratic information ecosystem”—one where corporate capture of media is as alarming as the potential for state control to erode liberties.
https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/12/kev ... ia-system/
******
Just for fun...
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/12 ... s-man.html
Nailed it.
Censorship, fake news, perception management
Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management
CBS Censors Report on El Salvador’s CECOT Prison
December 23, 2025
CECOT prison. Photo: X/@OzorNdiOzor.
Its cancellation was political, Journalist Alfonsi denounced.
On Sunday, the CBS TV network pulled down the report “Inside CECOT” hours before its scheduled broadcast in the United States. It was part of their ’60 Minutes’ program, and it documented the torture, sexual, and physical abuse at the Salvadoran prison.
CBS editor-in-chief Bari Weiss justified the decision by saying that additional context and more interviews with officials in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump were needed, including Stephen Miller, former White House advisor and architect of the mass deportation policy.
Sharyn Alfonsi, the journalist who worked on the report, argued that the story had been reviewed five times and approved by lawyers and the CBS Standards and Practices department. She denounced that the cancellation was political rather than editorial.
However, the report was broadcast in Canada on Global TV, the network that holds the rights to 60 Minutes in that country, and remained available for two hours before also being taken down. The report quickly went viral on social media through clips shared by users.
Previously, human rights defenders denounced that Venezuelans deported from the U.S. to El Salvador were subjected to torture, sexual violence, and systematic ill-treatment at CECOT, a mega-prison built for gang members.
The Trump administration, in agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, transferred 252 Venezuelan migrants between March and April. They were accused, without evidence, of belonging to the Tren de Aragua criminal group, designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.
According to human rights international organizations, the U.S. government paid El Salvador millions of dollars to arbitrarily detain Venezuelans, who were beaten almost daily and held for four months until their repatriation in July through a prisoner exchange between Washington and Caracas.
The abuses were not isolated incidents, but rather systematic human rights violations, including incommunicado detention, insufficient food, and precarious hygiene conditions.
Researchers interviewed 40 detained Venezuelans and another 150 people and documented sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and extreme overcrowding with ten people per windowless cell.
https://orinocotribune.com/cbs-censors- ... ot-prison/
December 23, 2025
CECOT prison. Photo: X/@OzorNdiOzor.
Its cancellation was political, Journalist Alfonsi denounced.
On Sunday, the CBS TV network pulled down the report “Inside CECOT” hours before its scheduled broadcast in the United States. It was part of their ’60 Minutes’ program, and it documented the torture, sexual, and physical abuse at the Salvadoran prison.
CBS editor-in-chief Bari Weiss justified the decision by saying that additional context and more interviews with officials in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump were needed, including Stephen Miller, former White House advisor and architect of the mass deportation policy.
Sharyn Alfonsi, the journalist who worked on the report, argued that the story had been reviewed five times and approved by lawyers and the CBS Standards and Practices department. She denounced that the cancellation was political rather than editorial.
However, the report was broadcast in Canada on Global TV, the network that holds the rights to 60 Minutes in that country, and remained available for two hours before also being taken down. The report quickly went viral on social media through clips shared by users.
Previously, human rights defenders denounced that Venezuelans deported from the U.S. to El Salvador were subjected to torture, sexual violence, and systematic ill-treatment at CECOT, a mega-prison built for gang members.
The Trump administration, in agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, transferred 252 Venezuelan migrants between March and April. They were accused, without evidence, of belonging to the Tren de Aragua criminal group, designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.
According to human rights international organizations, the U.S. government paid El Salvador millions of dollars to arbitrarily detain Venezuelans, who were beaten almost daily and held for four months until their repatriation in July through a prisoner exchange between Washington and Caracas.
The abuses were not isolated incidents, but rather systematic human rights violations, including incommunicado detention, insufficient food, and precarious hygiene conditions.
Researchers interviewed 40 detained Venezuelans and another 150 people and documented sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and extreme overcrowding with ten people per windowless cell.
https://orinocotribune.com/cbs-censors- ... ot-prison/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management
How political analysis became a target of A.I. fakes
Pepe Escobar
December 29, 2025
Welcome to A.I. turning the net into an infernal machine bent on erasing meaning, culture and History – and sowing deep intellectual confusion. Exactly like Techno-Feudalism wants it.
A.I. is fast expanding as a plague all along the internet spectrum. That’s quite predictable, considering the Big Tech model for A.I. is techno-feudalism, relying on profit and mind/social control, and not on sharing/expanding knowledge and creating better conditions for a well-informed citizenry.
A.I. in many aspects is the antithesis of civitas. Prior to the A.I. boom, several layers of the internet had already been distorted into a series of minefields across a large-than-life sewer. A.I. – as controlled by Big Tech – in many aspects had already revealed itself as a fraud. Now it’s a weapon.
There are several channels on YouTube manipulated by A.I., stealing the image and voice by some of us, independent political analysts. A not-extensive list includes as targets John Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, Richard Wolff, Glenn Diesen, Yanis Varoufakis, economist Paulo Nogueira Batista and myself.
It’s not an accident that all of us are independent geopolitical and geoeconomic analysts, mostly know each other personally, and are guests in roughly the same podcasts.
In my own case, there are channels in English, Portuguese and even Spanish: I rarely do podcasts in Spanish, so even the voice is fake. In English, usually the voice is approximately cloned. In Portuguese it comes with an accent I don’t have. In several cases, audience numbers are huge. Essentially, these come from bots.
In all cases, as far as we, the targets are concerned, all these channels are fake. I repeat: all these channels are fake. They may at least in some cases be set up by “fans” – certainly with an eye for profit via monetization.
Or the whole scam may be part of something way more sinister: a strategy bent of loss of credibility. As in an operation by the usual suspects to sow confusion amongst the – large – audience of several independent thinkers.
It’s not an accident that quite a few viewers are already deeply puzzled. Cue to the most common question: “Is this really you, or A.I.?” Many apparently have denounced these fake channels, but YouTube, so far, has done absolutely nothing about them. The algos keep suggesting these channels to large audiences.
The only realistic way to fight the scam is to file a complaint with YouTube. But that, in practice, is pretty useless. YouTube management seems to be more interested in occasionally erasing “inconvenient” channels displaying critical thinking and analysis.
Cracking the code of the scam
Quantum Bird, a physics and HPC (High Performance Computing) expert, formerly with the CERN in Geneva, has cracked the code of the scam:
“The proliferation of agents of deep learning digital neural networks capable of emulating writing, voice and video of human beings was inevitable, and their impact on scientific research, production of knowledge and art in general has a negative potential that has not been yet fully analyzed.”
He adds: “While writers and academics are detailing the springing up of texts attributed to them, and replicating to a certain extent their style and opinions, the latest fad is the blooming of whole channels on YouTube, and other notorious Big Tech platforms, that offer videos of popular content producers, communicating in their native language or other languages. In several cases, the quality of this synthesized material is sufficiently high not to allow immediate identification by an average viewer. In the context of the political analysis community, the impact is obvious: historic revisionism, erosion of reputations and distortion of news and analysis.”
And here Quantum Bird lays out the tech clincher:
“The synthetization of this type of content requires the availability of abundant samples and massive computational capacity, way beyond the reach of domestic users. While the popularity of the YouTube victims guarantees the first condition, the second one suggests the activity of large-scale state or corporate actors, since advanced deep learning models must be developed and trained by processing a huge quantity, in terms of “disk space”, of audio and video. The monetization of the content does not cover the costs of this operation. Ironically, it’s the availability and the excess exposure of voice and video online that allows this type of attack.”
Here we go. Welcome to A.I. turning the net into an infernal machine bent on erasing meaning, culture and History – and sowing deep intellectual confusion. Exactly like Techno-Feudalism wants it.
https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... -ai-fakes/
"Techno-Feudalism", meh...it's all capitalism.
Pepe Escobar
December 29, 2025
Welcome to A.I. turning the net into an infernal machine bent on erasing meaning, culture and History – and sowing deep intellectual confusion. Exactly like Techno-Feudalism wants it.
A.I. is fast expanding as a plague all along the internet spectrum. That’s quite predictable, considering the Big Tech model for A.I. is techno-feudalism, relying on profit and mind/social control, and not on sharing/expanding knowledge and creating better conditions for a well-informed citizenry.
A.I. in many aspects is the antithesis of civitas. Prior to the A.I. boom, several layers of the internet had already been distorted into a series of minefields across a large-than-life sewer. A.I. – as controlled by Big Tech – in many aspects had already revealed itself as a fraud. Now it’s a weapon.
There are several channels on YouTube manipulated by A.I., stealing the image and voice by some of us, independent political analysts. A not-extensive list includes as targets John Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, Richard Wolff, Glenn Diesen, Yanis Varoufakis, economist Paulo Nogueira Batista and myself.
It’s not an accident that all of us are independent geopolitical and geoeconomic analysts, mostly know each other personally, and are guests in roughly the same podcasts.
In my own case, there are channels in English, Portuguese and even Spanish: I rarely do podcasts in Spanish, so even the voice is fake. In English, usually the voice is approximately cloned. In Portuguese it comes with an accent I don’t have. In several cases, audience numbers are huge. Essentially, these come from bots.
In all cases, as far as we, the targets are concerned, all these channels are fake. I repeat: all these channels are fake. They may at least in some cases be set up by “fans” – certainly with an eye for profit via monetization.
Or the whole scam may be part of something way more sinister: a strategy bent of loss of credibility. As in an operation by the usual suspects to sow confusion amongst the – large – audience of several independent thinkers.
It’s not an accident that quite a few viewers are already deeply puzzled. Cue to the most common question: “Is this really you, or A.I.?” Many apparently have denounced these fake channels, but YouTube, so far, has done absolutely nothing about them. The algos keep suggesting these channels to large audiences.
The only realistic way to fight the scam is to file a complaint with YouTube. But that, in practice, is pretty useless. YouTube management seems to be more interested in occasionally erasing “inconvenient” channels displaying critical thinking and analysis.
Cracking the code of the scam
Quantum Bird, a physics and HPC (High Performance Computing) expert, formerly with the CERN in Geneva, has cracked the code of the scam:
“The proliferation of agents of deep learning digital neural networks capable of emulating writing, voice and video of human beings was inevitable, and their impact on scientific research, production of knowledge and art in general has a negative potential that has not been yet fully analyzed.”
He adds: “While writers and academics are detailing the springing up of texts attributed to them, and replicating to a certain extent their style and opinions, the latest fad is the blooming of whole channels on YouTube, and other notorious Big Tech platforms, that offer videos of popular content producers, communicating in their native language or other languages. In several cases, the quality of this synthesized material is sufficiently high not to allow immediate identification by an average viewer. In the context of the political analysis community, the impact is obvious: historic revisionism, erosion of reputations and distortion of news and analysis.”
And here Quantum Bird lays out the tech clincher:
“The synthetization of this type of content requires the availability of abundant samples and massive computational capacity, way beyond the reach of domestic users. While the popularity of the YouTube victims guarantees the first condition, the second one suggests the activity of large-scale state or corporate actors, since advanced deep learning models must be developed and trained by processing a huge quantity, in terms of “disk space”, of audio and video. The monetization of the content does not cover the costs of this operation. Ironically, it’s the availability and the excess exposure of voice and video online that allows this type of attack.”
Here we go. Welcome to A.I. turning the net into an infernal machine bent on erasing meaning, culture and History – and sowing deep intellectual confusion. Exactly like Techno-Feudalism wants it.
https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... -ai-fakes/
"Techno-Feudalism", meh...it's all capitalism.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management
From the Department of Arrogance:
The First Amendment must be limited to protect it.
January 2, 4:58 PM
On trends in "free speech protection."
An Israeli billionaire calls on the US to repeal the First Amendment's freedom of speech rights.
Shlomo Kramer, co-founder of Check Point Software Technologies, a major global cybersecurity company, calls for complete government control over all social media platforms.
He argues that the First Amendment in the US should be limited, adding that AI will play a key role in restricting free speech.
"AI is going to revolutionize cyberwarfare... from critical infrastructure to the structure of society and politics—undermining it... And it's time to limit the First Amendment to protect it."
He adds: "We need to assess the credibility of every person expressing their opinion online and monitor what they say."
https://t.me/belshkvarka/182670 - zinc
Regarding the current topic of verifying LiveJournal commentators.
As mentioned earlier, the trends in this direction are obvious. Both in our country and elsewhere. The state will strive for complete control over its segment of the network.
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10283353.html
Arrogance we of course expect from from the ruling class, it is exceptional for a foreigner to suggest changes in another's constitution.
The First Amendment must be limited to protect it.
January 2, 4:58 PM
On trends in "free speech protection."
An Israeli billionaire calls on the US to repeal the First Amendment's freedom of speech rights.
Shlomo Kramer, co-founder of Check Point Software Technologies, a major global cybersecurity company, calls for complete government control over all social media platforms.
He argues that the First Amendment in the US should be limited, adding that AI will play a key role in restricting free speech.
"AI is going to revolutionize cyberwarfare... from critical infrastructure to the structure of society and politics—undermining it... And it's time to limit the First Amendment to protect it."
He adds: "We need to assess the credibility of every person expressing their opinion online and monitor what they say."
https://t.me/belshkvarka/182670 - zinc
Regarding the current topic of verifying LiveJournal commentators.
As mentioned earlier, the trends in this direction are obvious. Both in our country and elsewhere. The state will strive for complete control over its segment of the network.
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10283353.html
Arrogance we of course expect from from the ruling class, it is exceptional for a foreigner to suggest changes in another's constitution.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management
Billionaire’s Mouthpiece Searches for Reasons to Avoid Taxing Billionaires
Jim Naureckas
Washington Post depiction of Billionaire Peter Thiel
California is considering a referendum on whether to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state’s billionaires. The paper’s hot take: “Many progressives think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: If some is good, more must be great.”
The paper offers PayPal’s Peter Thiel and Google‘s Larry Page, both of whom have threatened to leave California, as poster children for why you shouldn’t subject billionaires to a wealth tax—both highly dubious examples.
Thiel is well-known for his use of an absurd tax loophole (ProPublica, 6/24/21): He put 1.7 million shares of PayPal stock—which he valued at 0.1 cents apiece, so $1,700—into a Roth IRA, and by 2021 that had grown through reinvestment into a $5 billion nest egg. (In 2026, it’s likely the bulk of his $25 billion fortune.) A Roth IRA means that if he waits until 2027, when he turns 59, he won’t have to pay any taxes at all on that. This is precisely why people want a wealth tax, because the tax code makes it easy for oligarchs like Thiel to pay little or nothing in income tax.
Page is also known for tax shenanigans, parking much of his wealth in a “charity” that distributes almost none of its wealth to disclosed recipients (Vox, 12/18/19). When ProPublica (4/13/22) analyzed tax filings from the super-rich, Page had one of the lowest effective federal income tax rates among prominent billionaires.
‘Blew a hole in the budget’
The only way Tepper would have paid “hundreds of millions” in Jersey state income tax would be if he were declaring several billion in income a year. But Tepper reportedly made $750 million in 2016, which would be $67 million at the top tax rate—which he wouldn’t pay anyway, since he’s a hedge fund manager and benefits from a special tax loophole designed just for them.
In any case, Tepper moved back to New Jersey in 2020 (Politico, 9/24/20)—so it’s not clear what kind of object lesson he should serve for California. Was his 2016 move representative of a broader problem of the flight of the wealthy from New Jersey? It’s hard to see how, as the state has the highest concentration of millionaires in the country (Kiplinger, 5/27/20)—up from third-highest in 2014 (New Jersey Policy Perspective, 4/13/16).
Imaginary exodus
The Journal leaned heavily on a study by two economists at the right-wing Hoover Institution, Joshua Rauh and Ryan Shyu, who the paper said found that “the likelihood of a wealthy resident moving out of California increased by about 40%” following an income tax hike on the ultra-wealthy. Hiltzik noted that the actual percentage of rich people moving out was quite small—increasing from 1.5% to 2.125%—and, more importantly, that Rauh and Shyu only looked at outgoing multi-millionaires, ignoring the fact that more affluent people were moving to the state than moving away.
More than six years later, the Post is still citing Rauh and Shyu, still talking about that same 2013 California tax hike and the imaginary exodus of plutocrats it caused. I don’t know why they should be any more convincing than they were a decade ago—but then, the editorialists only have to convince one reader that they’re doing their best to protect his fortune.
https://fair.org/home/billionaires-mout ... lionaires/
A one time wealth tax is hardly more than symbolic. It should be annual.
Jim Naureckas
Washington Post depiction of Billionaire Peter Thiel
The Washington Post, which exists mainly to serve the interests of its mega-billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, unsurprisingly thinks taxing the wealth of billionaires is a bad idea (FAIR.org, 12/11/19). Its recent editorial (1/1/26) warning California not to institute a tax on extreme wealth—headlined “California Will Miss Billionaires When They’re Gone”—illustrates that when you’re telling the boss exactly what he wants to hear, you don’t have to think very hard.
The Washington Post (1/1/26) illustrates an article on why states should worry about taxing billionaires’ wealth with a photo of Peter Thiel, a billionaire who has figured out a way to avoid ever paying most income taxes.
California is considering a referendum on whether to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state’s billionaires. The paper’s hot take: “Many progressives think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: If some is good, more must be great.”
The paper offers PayPal’s Peter Thiel and Google‘s Larry Page, both of whom have threatened to leave California, as poster children for why you shouldn’t subject billionaires to a wealth tax—both highly dubious examples.
Thiel is well-known for his use of an absurd tax loophole (ProPublica, 6/24/21): He put 1.7 million shares of PayPal stock—which he valued at 0.1 cents apiece, so $1,700—into a Roth IRA, and by 2021 that had grown through reinvestment into a $5 billion nest egg. (In 2026, it’s likely the bulk of his $25 billion fortune.) A Roth IRA means that if he waits until 2027, when he turns 59, he won’t have to pay any taxes at all on that. This is precisely why people want a wealth tax, because the tax code makes it easy for oligarchs like Thiel to pay little or nothing in income tax.
Page is also known for tax shenanigans, parking much of his wealth in a “charity” that distributes almost none of its wealth to disclosed recipients (Vox, 12/18/19). When ProPublica (4/13/22) analyzed tax filings from the super-rich, Page had one of the lowest effective federal income tax rates among prominent billionaires.
‘Blew a hole in the budget’
To illustrate the fiscal danger California would be putting itself in with a wealth tax, the Post cited the example of New Jersey billionaire David Tepper, who “blew a hole in the state budget by moving to Florida.” That’s according to an article from Philadelphia public TV station WHYY (4/11/16), which said in 2016 that “while the amount Tepper paid in taxes last year is unknown to the public…a resident that rich [$11.4 billion] could pay tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in income taxes if they paid New Jersey’s highest rate, 8.97%.”
Contrary to WHYY‘s speculation (4/11/16), billionaire David Tepper moving to Florida did not “blow a hole” in New Jersey’s state budget, nor did his moving back in 2020 give the state a bonanza.
The only way Tepper would have paid “hundreds of millions” in Jersey state income tax would be if he were declaring several billion in income a year. But Tepper reportedly made $750 million in 2016, which would be $67 million at the top tax rate—which he wouldn’t pay anyway, since he’s a hedge fund manager and benefits from a special tax loophole designed just for them.
In any case, Tepper moved back to New Jersey in 2020 (Politico, 9/24/20)—so it’s not clear what kind of object lesson he should serve for California. Was his 2016 move representative of a broader problem of the flight of the wealthy from New Jersey? It’s hard to see how, as the state has the highest concentration of millionaires in the country (Kiplinger, 5/27/20)—up from third-highest in 2014 (New Jersey Policy Perspective, 4/13/16).
Imaginary exodus
This is a perennial problem with the oligarchy’s don’t-touch-our-money arguments: They want to claim that they’ll run away from high taxes, but they like living in high-tax states. The LA Times‘ Michael Hiltzik (10/24/19) pointed this out years ago, responding to a similar editorial in the Wall Street Journal (“California’s Tax-the-Rich Boomerang,” 10/21/19).
The LA Times‘ Michael Hiltzik (10/24/19) debunked most of the Washington Post‘s arguments more than six years ago, when they were deployed by the Wall Street Journal (10/21/19).
The Journal leaned heavily on a study by two economists at the right-wing Hoover Institution, Joshua Rauh and Ryan Shyu, who the paper said found that “the likelihood of a wealthy resident moving out of California increased by about 40%” following an income tax hike on the ultra-wealthy. Hiltzik noted that the actual percentage of rich people moving out was quite small—increasing from 1.5% to 2.125%—and, more importantly, that Rauh and Shyu only looked at outgoing multi-millionaires, ignoring the fact that more affluent people were moving to the state than moving away.
More than six years later, the Post is still citing Rauh and Shyu, still talking about that same 2013 California tax hike and the imaginary exodus of plutocrats it caused. I don’t know why they should be any more convincing than they were a decade ago—but then, the editorialists only have to convince one reader that they’re doing their best to protect his fortune.
https://fair.org/home/billionaires-mout ... lionaires/
A one time wealth tax is hardly more than symbolic. It should be annual.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."