logo
Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code

Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code

The Hill9 hours ago

As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits.
The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever.
Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality.
The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether.
Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events.
A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not.
Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base.
People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably.
This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages.
In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks.
A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income.
This plan is transparent.Retained earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation.
The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers.
Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader.
Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few.
Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported.
The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes.
Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact.
Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks
Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Unpacking rumor that Trump is sending out $5K stimulus checks

According to a rumor that spread online in late May and early June 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump would be sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered billions of dollars in "wasted money." The viral rumor likely stems from an investment firm CEO's proposal to send some taxpayers so-called "DOGE Dividend" checks. The original proposal for $5,000 checks was based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings, which is highly unlikely. Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," but there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House for clarity but has not received a response. In late May and early June 2025, a rumor on TikTok (archived) claimed that U.S. President Donald Trump was reportedly sending out $5,000 "stimulus" checks to Americans after his administration uncovered $50 billion in "wasted money." "Trump is going to be sending out five grand to everybody and this is because they uncovered $50 billion … of just wasted money," the TikTok video's narrator said. @todaynews919 #fyp #foryou #new #news ♬ original sound - todaynews919 The video's narrator later said the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency initiative allegedly proposed sending money it had "recovered" to the American people. The initiative, spearheaded by tech billionaire Elon Musk before his departure, works to slash government spending through layoffs and cuts to various federal programs. Though Trump has previously floated the idea of a "DOGE Dividend," there was no proof at the time of this writing that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans. Snopes reached out to the White House to ask if the president has any plans to send such checks and is awaiting a response. Since we were not able to definitively prove or disprove this rumor, we have not put a rating on this claim. The viral rumor likely stems from a proposal to send some taxpayers "DOGE Dividend" checks. Trump previously said he would consider such a plan, but his administration has not confirmed that it's sending any checks. The idea for DOGE Dividend checks was originally proposed by James Fishback, the founder and CEO of the investment firm Azoria Partners, in an X post (archived) shared on Feb. 18, 2025: Fishback's post also included a more in-depth proposal based on the assumption that DOGE would achieve $2 trillion in total savings. He suggested that the federal government take 20% of DOGE's presumed savings, or about $400 billion, and return it to approximately 79 million taxpaying households in the form of $5,000 tax refund checks called the DOGE Dividend. Under Fishback's plan, the government would send checks only to "households that will be net payers of federal income tax," meaning those that pay more money in taxes than they get back in tax credits or refunds. That means American households that do not owe federal income tax would not qualify for the proposed payments. In 2025, an estimated 40% of U.S. households will pay no federal individual income tax, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Most of these households have lower incomes, with about 70% earning less than $75,000 and about 45% earning less than $40,000, the Tax Policy Center estimates. On the same day that Fishback shared his proposal for the $5,000 checks, Musk replied (archived), "Will check with the president." Trump quickly acknowledged the idea as he delivered remarks during a Saudi investors conference in Miami on Feb. 19, 2025. "There's even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt, because the numbers are incredible, Elon," Trump said at the conference. A reporter also asked Trump about the plan as he flew back to Washington, D.C., aboard Air Force One that day. He said: I love it. A 20% dividend, so to speak, for the money that we're saving by going after the waste and fraud and abuse and all the other things that are happening, I think it's a great idea. The dividend checks would also give taxpayers "an incentive … to go out and report things to use when we can save money," Trump added. Several weeks later, Fishback spoke further about his proposal during a March 2025 podcast appearance. He said if DOGE didn't hit the $2 trillion in projected savings, the amount of money in the dividend checks should be adjusted. "This plan is not predestined to the $5,000 number. If the savings come in above or below that, the check will be reflected accordingly," Fishback said. "So again, if the savings are $1 trillion — which I think is awfully low — the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500." At a town hall in Wisconsin on March 30, 2025, Musk fielded questions about the proposal, ultimately putting the responsibility of approving tax refund checks on Congress and Trump. "It's somewhat up to the Congress and maybe the president … as to whether specific checks are cut," Musk said in response. A search of did not return any results for legislation proposing "DOGE Dividend" tax refund checks. Snopes also could not find any record of Trump sharing additional details about a plan for such checks since February 2025, and we are still awaiting a response from the White House. It's still unclear how much money DOGE might ultimately save. Musk said in October 2024 that he expected to cut "at least $2 trillion" but he later lowered that estimate to $1 trillion. However, both of those estimates were "wildly unrealistic," PolitiFact reported in June 2025. As of June 6, 2025, DOGE's online "wall of receipts" touted an estimated $180 billion in cuts, but analyses by PolitiFact (here and here) and The New York Times found that the online ledger was riddled with errors. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. "Who Will Pay No Federal Individual Income Tax in 2025?" Tax Policy Center, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Palm Beach Post. "Full Donald Trump Speech at Miami FII Investment Summit Hosted by Saudi Public Investment Fund." YouTube, 19 Feb. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. David Lin. "Will You Get a $5,000 Check? "Doge Dividend" Explained | James Fishback." YouTube, 12 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul. "LIVE | Elon Musk Holds Town Hall in Wisconsin." YouTube, 30 Mar. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Legislative Search Results." 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. WFAA. "Elon Musk Full Speech at Trump Rally in Madison Square Garden (Oct. 27, 2024)." YouTube, 27 Oct. 2024, Accessed 15 Nov. 2024. X. Accessed 6 June 2025. Clarke, Amelia. "Yes, Musk Said He'd Ask Trump about $5K Checks for US Taxpayers Funded by DOGE Savings." Snopes, 21 Feb. 2025, Czopek, Madison, and Amy Sherman. "Trump and Musk Public Bickering Raises More DOGE Uncertainty." @Politifact, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. DOGE. "DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency." DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency, 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. McCullough, Caleb. "Where Do DOGE's Reported Savings Come From?" @Politifact, 21 Feb. 2025, Fahrenthold, David A, and Jeremy Singer-Vine. "DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress." The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025.

Congress members denied entry to Manhattan ICE facility, claim overcrowding, unsanitary conditions
Congress members denied entry to Manhattan ICE facility, claim overcrowding, unsanitary conditions

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Congress members denied entry to Manhattan ICE facility, claim overcrowding, unsanitary conditions

Two members of Congress were blocked Sunday from entering an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Manhattan after trying to inspect it amid widespread detainments and claims of unbearable heat and overcrowding — including detainees being forced to sleep on bathroom floors. New York Democrat Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velazquez tried to perform a drop-in check at a temporary detainment facility at 26 Federal Plaza in Tribeca Sunday afternoon, but said they were illegally denied entry by an official from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The pair argued that as elected officials, they have the legal right to inspect the facility unannounced. 'This is not Russia,' Rep. Velazquez said. 'This is the United States of America where we have three branches of government. The president of the United States is not a king. And we, as members of Congress, have the duly constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight in a place like this. What is it that they are hiding?' The congressional reps tried inspecting the facility — where hundreds of immigrants are reportedly being held after being swept up in recent ICE raids — after receiving reports of unbearable heat and overcrowding to the point that detainees have been forced to sleep on bathroom floors, according to the New York Immigration Coalition. 'We are members or Congress, duly elected. Our constitutional right and our constitutional duty is to have oversight over these agencies and to ensure that we supervise and ascertain whether the conditions in these facilities are just or not, whether they're inhumane or not,' Rep. Espailllat said. 'Today ICE violated all of our rights because as an extension, we are here to defend your rights, the rights of the American people to have access and oversight to the federal buildings to ensure that everything is done correctly and in accordance to the law,' he said. 'We were denied that right today, a basic civil right, a constitutional right, that we as members of congress are here to uphold. So we will continue to come back. 'We will continue to come back until we are allowed to have access to the 10th floor.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store