Can we conquer disease without concentrating wealth in a precious few pockets? Not-so-distant American history offers a clear and encouraging answer. The victory over polio a half-century ago created no billionaires.
On this month’s 50th anniversary of one of the all-time edgiest Beatles tracks, our super rich have a special reason to look back fondly on the lads from Liverpool.
The two Democratic Party White House hopefuls agree on cutting back on the after-tax incomes of America’s rich. A recently released analysis shows they disagree significantly on just how much.
Conservatives who worry about government "red tape" smothering "freedom" need to take a closer look at our great economic divides. And if they did, they'd start supporting America's trade unions instead of trying to subvert them.
Just a busload of billionaires, says Oxfam, now hold as much wealth than the entire bottom half of humanity. The elites now at Davos could, if they so chose, start steering that bus in a different direction.
In our deeply unequal times, historian Edward O’Donnell reminds us, the life of the 19th century’s most important critic of concentrated wealth remains as relevant as ever.
Startling new data from the National Academy of Sciences suggest that extreme inequality may be exacting a much steeper price – on our health – than we’ve up to now expected.
No 13-digit fortune has yet appeared on the horizon. But if we wait until we get close enough to see one, warns tax attorney and wealth analyst Bob Lord, we may find our plutocracy set eternally in concrete.
The federal Securities and Exchange Commission has just given Americans an official yardstick for measuring corporate CEO greed: the comparison between a company's median compensation for all its workers and CEO pay.
In any society that winks as great stashes of wealth amass at the top, philosopher Elizabeth Anderson reminds us, the wealthy will sooner or later see most of the rest of us as failures.
What do corporate chiefs want out of the latest global trade talks? A veto over government decisions that complicate their profiteering. Will they get that veto? Labor analyst Thea Lee sees reasons they just might not.
A new online petition drive is protesting the incredibly high prices that enormously overpaid pharmaceutical CEOs charge for cancer drugs.
Should America’s taxpayers be subsidizing all those millions in compensation that CEOs are collecting? Rep. Barbara Lee from California doesn’t think so. Her bill addressing that problem has just been introduced.
Sometimes, CEOs don’t fight failure. They bet on it. Now the Securities and Exchange Commission is finally moving, ever so slightly, against wagers that reward CEOs when their companies fail.
Can we trust Oxfam’s latest dramatic numbers on global inequality? Two of the world’s top policy wonks don't think we should. But their pushback is getting pushback aplenty.
A "blue-ribbon panel report" on our grand economic divide never gets around to recognizing that in order to save our democracy, we need to contemplate our plutocracy.
Two of the world's top progressive social scientists, the British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, reflect on how economic inequality poisons our lives — and how we might detox.
This year’s all-stars of avarice range in age from thirty-somethings to just shy of octogenarian status. They’re all doing their greedy best to keep our world a staggeringly unequal place.
A rising tide lifts all boats? New research and another dose of on-the-ground reality are shredding what little credibility the rationalizers of inequality have left.
America’s 400 richest are collecting far more of the nation’s income than they did two generations ago — and paying Uncle Sam far less. To fudge these facts, pals of plutocrats are having to work overtime.
The kingpins of Congress have spent years carving tax loopholes that help America’s CEOs fleece the federal treasury. Now these kingpins are pushing a corporate tax ‘reform’ that ignores the loopholes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has just released its latest appraisal of America’s income breakdown. Whatever yardstick you use, the CBO study makes plain, the rich are winning. Big.
Americans want what 21st century politics has so far not delivered: real options for challenging concentrated wealth. That's one conclusion from new polling that gave Americans a choice of seven tax policy options.
America’s most powerful economic policy maker dramatically charges that inequality is choking off opportunity for average families. Political candidates across the nation pay absolutely no attention.
Income gaps and wealth concentration go hand in hand, new global stats from the Credit Suisse Research Institute make clear. With one exception.
A landmark new study has laid bare the dirty little secret of modern American philanthropy: America's wealthy don't particularly care all that much about the rest of us.
Forbes doesn’t bother asking how our absurdly rich went about making their fortunes. But we should. Our top 400, after all, haven’t just made monstrously large fortunes. They’ve made a monstrously large mess.
The just-released new Forbes 400 numbers don't just stagger the imagination. They stagger common sense. The average Forbes 400 deep-pocket now holds a net worth 70,000 times the wealth of the median household.
The more wealth concentrates, the greater the strain on our biosphere. Top environmentalists get that connection. Now our societies must.
The "average" U.S. family is doing just fine, says the Federal Reserve's latest portrait of household wealth. But typical Americans, other numbers in the report make clear, are struggling something awful. What's up here?
An obscure provision in the Affordable Care Act, a new report details, raises taxes on firms that overpay their top execs. The only problem: The provision so far only applies to corporations in one industry.
America's top central bankers didn't make time for inequality at their annual hobnob last week. Over in Germany, the world's Nobel Prize winners in economics did. But few Americans noticed.
Wealth's current tilt to the top sometimes seems almost eternal. But can our economy ‘self-correct’? A provocative new paper out of the developed world's official research agency contemplates our tomorrow.
A leading conservative academic is charging that critics of America's top-heavy distribution of income and wealth are missing the bigger picture. In the process, progressive economists point out, he's only fogging that picture up.
Narcissists don’t happen to be particularly nice people. They preen. They grab. And they never ever really feel our pain. New research shows that extremely self-centered people also don’t make particularly effective corporate CEOs.
The outsourcing of public services to private go-getters has concentrated wealth the whole world over. The best answer to that concentration? That just may be new forms of public ownership.
More than enough, the latest statistical evidence suggests, to warrant a full-fledged federal search. A new banking law in effect this month could start that search in the right direction.
Workers in the United States don't make double what workers make in Japan or Switzerland. Why should U.S. CEOs routinely make double — and often much more — than Japanese and Swiss top execs?
A key keeper of the market fundamentalist flame, the Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore, wants us to know that all his rich and powerful red-state pals really do care about income maldistribution.
Wage squeezes, share buybacks, and tax subsidies, three new progressive think tank studies show, are all combining to keep America's high and mighty ever higher and mightier.