The Case Against Tax Cuts for the Top 1%

Why America Can't Afford Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" and Keep Subsidizing the Super-Rich

If you like articles from The Big Con, hit the like button, subscribe, comment, and recommend us in your Substack recommendations. It really helps get the newsletter to more people.

As Congress debates the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the question of who truly benefits from government resources and tax policy is front and center. Proponents argue the bill will lock in economic growth by making permanent the Trump-era 2017 tax cuts, boost wages, and deliver new investments in infrastructure, defense, and border security. Critics, however, warn that the bill’s extension of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, without significant offsets, will balloon the deficit and miss an opportunity to address widening inequality.

Elon Musk has voiced sharp concern—not just about the bill’s spending, but about its fiscal sustainability. Musk points out that the bill increases the deficit by trillions, undermining efforts to cut waste and improve government efficiency. Musk has said, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both.”

This debate reflects a broader question about the role of the wealthy in American society: Do they contribute enough to the public good, or do they disproportionately benefit from, and sometimes manipulate, the very systems meant to serve all citizens?

Recent scandals—such as the mismanagement of funds by high-profile nonprofits and the influence of dark money in politics—have fueled public distrust. These controversies raise critical questions about the legitimacy of grassroots movements, the effectiveness of philanthropy, and the need for greater transparency and accountability—issues now at the heart of the legislative battle.

When billionaires pay less in taxes than teachers, something is fundamentally broken. Here’s the bottom line: Tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. Period.

In 1989, the richest 1% of Americans controlled approximately 23% of the nation's wealth. Today, they control 31% of wealth. Billionaires poured $1.2 billion into the 2020 election—about a 70x of their 2008 contributions. This trend reflects more than just rising economic inequality. It’s the result of tax policy transformed into a weapon against democracy itself.

For four decades, American policymakers have operated on a simple premise: cut taxes for the wealthy, and prosperity will flow to everyone else. But this economic experiment has produced an unintended consequence that threatens the foundation of American governance—the transformation of economic inequality into political inequality so extreme that it's undermining democratic representation itself.

What began as tax policy has evolved into something far more dangerous: a feedback loop where wealth concentration generates political power, which creates more favorable tax policies, which concentrates wealth further, which buys even more political influence. We're witnessing the emergence of an oligarchy—government by the few, for the few.

The evidence is overwhelming that tax cuts for the wealthy have failed economically. But their impact on American democracy may be even more devastating than their economic failures. When a small group of ultra-wealthy individuals can spend more on elections than millions of ordinary citizens combined, we're no longer operating in a democracy—we're living in a system where money determines political outcomes regardless of popular will.

As lawmakers consider the Big Beautiful Bill, understanding how wealth, influence, and public resources intersect is more critical than ever. The debate is not just about tax rates or spending priorities—it’s about whether government can truly serve the many, not just the privileged few.

The Democratic Crisis Hidden in Economic Data

Welcome to the New Gilded Age—except this time, it's worse.

A landmark study of 18 countries over five decades found that tax cuts for the wealthy increase inequality but have zero effect on economic growth or unemployment. An analysis of tax cuts by Brookings Institution economist William Gale and Dartmouth professor Andrew Samwick, former chief economist on George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, found that "there is, in short, no first-order evidence in the aggregate data that these tax cuts generated growth."

Today's wealth gap makes the robber barons of the 1920s look like amateurs. Between 1979 and 2021, the richest 0.01% of households—just 12,000 families—saw their incomes grow 27 times faster than the bottom 20% of earners. The richest 1% now control $42 trillion—more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans combined. We've reached levels of inequality not seen since right before the Great Depression, and that should terrify everyone who remembers how that story ended.

This isn't the result of harder work or brilliant innovation. It's the result of 40 years of policies designed to funnel money upward while telling working families to wait for it to trickle down.

According to Americans for Tax Fairness' analysis, 100 billionaire families spent a staggering $2.6 billion, or 16.5% of total political contributions, in 2024. In 2000, billionaire election spending came to just $18 million to influence the election, or 0.6% of total political contributions. This concentration allows the wealthy to shape policy in their favor and creates a self-reinforcing cycle of inequality.

The result is a system where money talks and voters walk. Research consistently shows that legislators’ voting patterns align closely with campaign contributors while remaining distant from the actual preferences of average voters. Republican donors are much more conservative than Republican citizens on economic issues while Democratic donors are more liberal on social issues, distorting both parties away from their voter bases.

We've created a democracy where your voice matters only if you can afford to buy a megaphone. The United States now ranks among the bottom third of developed nations in democratic quality, according to multiple international indices. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, America has fallen from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" status.

Forty Years of Broken Promises

The ultra-rich didn't just get lucky—they rewrote the rules of the game while everyone else was playing by the old ones. It's time to wake up to the greatest heist in American history.

Trickle-down economics has had plenty of time to work—and it simply doesn't.

Since Reagan launched this experiment in the 1980s, we've seen the same pattern repeat, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in power: massive tax cuts for the wealthy, promises of growth for everyone, and the same disappointing results. The track record speaks for itself:

• Reagan Era (1980s): The trickle-down experiment began with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%, eventually dropping to 28% by 1986. Supporters predicted this would unleash entrepreneurial energy and broad-based prosperity.
  
  The immediate aftermath was marked by a severe recession, with unemployment reaching 10.8% in December 1982—the highest level since the Great Depression. While the economy eventually recovered, income inequality began its steepest climb in modern American history. The share of income going to the top 1% increased from 8% in 1980 to 14% by 1989.

• Bush Jr. (2001-2009): George W. Bush's tax cuts coincided with the Citizens United Supreme Court case being conceived and funded by networks of wealthy donors who benefited from the tax reductions. The Bush years saw the emergence of "dark money" networks that advocated for even more favorable policies, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of political influence. Bush’s own economic advisers found "no evidence" that the tax cuts generated growth.

• Obama (2009-2017): Let some tax cuts for the wealthy expire but kept others, maintaining much of the failed system.

• Trump (2017-2021): Promised "rocket fuel" for the economy; delivered only more inequality.

• Biden (2021-present): Maintained most Trump tax cuts for the wealthy during his presidency. Then, he rediscovered Bernie’s “tax the rich” mantra as a cornerstone of his failed 2024 reelection campaign. (It probably would have gone the way of increasing the minimum wage, the public option for health insurance

The Clinton Exception: The one president who broke from this pattern—Bill Clinton—actually raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993. Result? The strongest economic growth and only budget surpluses in modern history. When we stopped cutting taxes for the rich, the economy boomed and working families prospered.

Why trickle-down fails:

• The ultra-rich don't work more when they get tax cuts.
  High-income individuals are unlikely to increase their work hours in response to cuts in their tax rates, research shows. "Overall, evidence suggests [high-income Americans'] labor supply is insensitive to tax rates," Leonard Burman, co-founder of the Tax Policy Center (TPC), notes.

• Wealthy investors don't save more when taxes drop.
  They already have considerable savings and sometimes struggle to find new ways to invest them. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) concludes that capital gains tax rate changes appear to have "little or no effect" on private saving.

• Companies don't hire more workers when their owners get tax breaks.
  Demand for products drives hiring, not CEO bank accounts. Proponents of the Bush tax cuts, which included sharp tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, promised immediate business growth. However, a recent study found "empirical evidence that the 2003 tax cuts had little impact on investment or employment."

This isn't complicated. When you give millionaires more money, millionaires have more money. When you tell working families this will somehow help them, you're lying.

How Billionaires Buy Democracy and Sell Us Division

The greatest trick the ultra-wealthy ever pulled was convincing Americans to fight each other instead of them. When they cannot win on the merits of their ideas, they decide to change the game entirely. Instead of better arguments, they bought better propaganda.

While we argue about bathroom laws and book bans, billionaires are quietly buying our democracy piece by piece. They've discovered something more valuable than tax cuts: the power to control what we think about, what we fight over, and what we never discuss at all.

Billionaire-funded NGOs and dark money groups have invested heavily in campaigns that heighten social discord by emphasizing divisive identity-based issues. These networks systematically fund an interlocking array of organizations that work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and public opinion. (Check out my article on the subject.)

Political spending routed through dark money organizations is strongly negative, asking voters to defeat candidates. By focusing attention on divisive identity politics, these actors can crowd out discussion of popular reforms—such as Medicare for All or expanded public education—that threaten elite interests.

How the Wealthy Disproportionately Benefit From Government Spending and Tax Cuts

Here's the ultimate irony: The richer you are, the more you depend on government—yet the less you pay for it.

In 2024, individuals and businesses benefited from roughly $1.9 trillion in tax expenditures. This was more than spending on Social Security ($1.5 trillion), Medicare ($874 billion), or defense spending ($874 billion). While wealthy Americans complain about "big government," they're actually its biggest beneficiaries.

Yet, despite benefiting disproportionately from public infrastructure and government services, the wealthy have systematically reduced their contributions to public coffers. Where once the tax code strove for a certain balance—the more you earned, the more you paid—the rates have been reduced so much that there's not nearly as much difference now between the top tax rate a billionaire investor pays on their income and what a middle-class salaried professional pays on theirs.

Billionaires love claiming they're "self-made," but their fortunes rest on infrastructure we all funded: roads that move their goods, public schools that educated their workers, courts that protect their assets, internet systems developed with taxpayer dollars, and airports connecting their global operations. The more wealth you have, the more government services you need—law enforcement to protect assets, federal courts for disputes, regulatory agencies for market stability, military protection for overseas investments.

Yet despite depending most on these public investments, the wealthy have systematically reduced what they pay. CEO compensation has skyrocketed 1,085% and stock buybacks have soared since 1978 while typical worker pay rose just 24%. (And we had to bail many out during the mortgage-backed security bubble and the pandemic.)

It's like eating at a restaurant, ordering the most expensive items on the menu, then stiffing the waiter and complaining about the bill.

Crony Capitalism: The Rigged Market

Washington has become a private auction house where the highest bidder wins lobbyist-designed laws. Over the past 30 years, industries and interest groups have persuaded Congress to write special benefits into the tax code just for them—a VIP club that locks out smaller businesses and harms ordinary taxpayers.

The deals are staggering. Nevada handed Tesla over $1.3 billion in tax breaks to build battery factories. Meanwhile, California's NRG Energy skips $14 million annually in property taxes on its solar panels and pockets another $110 million in depreciation breaks. These aren't accidents—they're the deliberate result of well-funded lobbying campaigns.

And it can get worse. When politicians start handing out special privileges, businesses stop competing on quality and start competing for political influence. Instead of investing in better products or customer service, companies allocate their resources to lobbying and campaign contributions. The result is a rigged system where connections matter more than competence, and favoritism replaces free markets.

Sound familiar? This isn't the free market—it's crony capitalism. And while the well-connected get richer through government handouts, everyone else gets stuck with the bill and locked out of the game.

Capturing (and Undermining) Democracy

Americans aren't stupid—they see exactly what's happening. Eight in ten adults say campaign donors have too much influence on Congress, while 73% say the same about lobbyists and special interest groups. Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats recognize that wealthy interests have hijacked our political system.

Yet the manipulation continues because it works. The ultra-wealthy have discovered that it's cheaper to buy the refs than to play fair, using tax cuts to fund a systematic assault on democracy itself. Here’s how the con works:

The process by which tax cuts for the wealthy undermine democracy follows a predictable pattern:

Step 1: Wealth Concentration
Tax cuts allow the ultra-wealthy to accumulate resources far beyond what they can spend on consumption. This creates vast pools of capital available for political influence.

Step 2: Political Investment
Wealthy individuals and corporations use their tax savings to fund political activities: campaigns, lobbying, think tanks, media operations, and advocacy organizations. The return on these political investments often exceeds returns from traditional business investments.

Step 3: Policy Capture
Political influence translates into favorable policies—not just more tax cuts, but deregulation, favorable treatment for specific industries, and blocking of policies that would reduce inequality.

Step 4: Democratic Erosion
As policy increasingly serves wealthy interests rather than public interests, faith in democratic institutions declines. Citizens recognize that their votes matter less than billionaire checkbooks, leading to political disengagement and further democratic weakening.

The evidence suggests we're deeply entrenched in this democratic erosion. A 2014 Princeton University study analyzed 1,779 policy issues, finding that when economic elites supported a policy, it had a 45% chance of being adopted, while the preferences of average citizens had a near-zero statistical impact. When elites opposed popular policies, those policies had only an 18% chance of adoption. This is indeed an oligarchy.

Meanwhile, policies that would actually improve most people's lives—Medicare for All, public education reforms, progressive taxation, universal childcare—are kept off the table through carefully orchestrated culture war distractions. These ideas poll incredibly well, but they threaten elite interests, so we're kept fighting about manufactured controversies while they pick our pockets.

The bottom line: Until we recognize this con for what it is, we'll keep fighting each other while they pick our pockets. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't just concentrate economic power—they systematically undermine democratic discourse itself, representing perhaps the greatest opportunity cost of our rigged system.

The Path Forward

After four decades of implementation, the evidence on tax cuts for the wealthy is clear: they increase inequality without delivering promised economic benefits. The question now is whether American policymaking can adapt to evidence rather than ideology.

Several policy approaches could address the documented problems:

1. Progressive taxation that tasks those who benefit most from public investments to contribute proportionally to maintaining them. This doesn't mean confiscatory rates—it means returning to the moderate progressivity that coincided with America's strongest economic growth.

2. Campaign finance reform that reduces the translation of economic inequality into political inequality, ensuring that policy decisions reflect broader public preferences rather than concentrated wealth.

3. Public investment in education, infrastructure, and research that creates the foundation for broad-based economic opportunity rather than concentrated returns to existing wealth holders.

The $50 trillion question—roughly the amount of wealth that has shifted to the top 1% since 1980—is whether America will continue policies that have demonstrably failed to deliver their promises, or whether evidence will finally inform policy.

This isn't about punishment or ideology—it's about designing economic policy based on what actually works rather than what sounds appealing in theory. After 40 years of real-world testing, we have clear data on the outcomes of tax cuts for the wealthy. The results don't match the promises.

The choice facing American policymakers and voters is straightforward: continue an experiment that has produced unprecedented inequality without delivering broad-based prosperity, or try approaches that evidence suggests actually work for widespread economic growth and opportunity.

As Warren Buffett noted, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." The question is whether that victory serves anyone's interests beyond those who are already winning.

So, call the White House, your representative, your senator. Tell them what you want.