Showing posts with label eat the rich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eat the rich. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2026

The centre left is not dead. A progressive new counter-Trumpian movement is on the way

The centre left is not dead. A progressive new counter-Trumpian movement is on the way

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/04/centre-left-not-dead-new-counter-trumpian-movemen 

 

Pedro Sanchez and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (left) during a welcome ceremony before the Spain-Brazil summit in Barcelona, 17 April 2026.
Pedro Sanchez and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (left) during a welcome ceremony before the first Spain-Brazil summit in Barcelona, 17 April 2026. Photograph: Andreu Dalmau/EPA

The centre left is not dead. A progressive new counter-Trumpian movement is on the way

Florian Ranft

Social democrats are at last facing up to the failures of globalisation to create equality or deliver for workers

If Donald Trump represents the backlash against the liberal rules-based order, then we may now be seeing the backlash to the backlash. In a recent speech, the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, spoke of just that. “They scream and shout not because they are winning, but because they know their time is running out,” he said, of those seeking to undermine international law and normalise the use of force. While the Trump administration and its allies seek to remake the world in their view, alternative visions of the international order are finally beginning to take shape.

The Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, in his now famous Davos speech in January, laid bare the vulnerabilities of what he described as a world in “rupture”. Middle powers must act together, he argued, because “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”. The way forward is not to abandon globalisation altogether but to remake it: preserving openness while upholding a rules-based order and avoiding over-reliance on a single country.

The French president Emmanuel Macron’s push for EU “strategic sovereignty” can be read as the European expression of the same instinct: openness, but with guardrails. A strategic form of liberalism that is hardened against a contested geopolitical environment.

But another response to Trumpism and the revival of nationalist great-power politics is also emerging. A who’s who of global progressives gathered in Barcelona last month to develop this response. Co-hosted by Sánchez and the Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, an array of centre-left leaders threaded the needle of a progressive internationalism fit for the 21st century.

This project starts with a different reading of the same backlash; recognition that while globalisation has generated growth, it has failed to deliver for large parts of the population, leaving wages stagnant, inequalities entrenched and entire regions feeling left behind. The Barcelona summit sought to fill a void, to provide the raison d’etre the centre-left has been searching for since the 2008 global financial crisis. Because in the years after the bailout of the financial sector, it became clear that championing untrammelled globalisation, third way-style, has not improved the lives of the working classes that are supposed to be the centre-left’s core constituency.

It has taken nearly two decades and a far right surge for the centre left to arrive at a response that matches this diagnosis. First, it seeks to redistribute the gains of globalisation. Calls to tax the billionaires, reform global finance and expand development investment take centre stage. Second, it aims to reshape the conditions under which globalisation operates. Strengthening multilateral institutions by reforming the UN, regulating the power of big tech and ensuring that globalisation operates within democratic and social constraints, are just as important as how its benefits are shared.

Third, it reasserts peace as a central pillar of international cooperation. In a world increasingly defined by conflict, progressive internationalism places renewed emphasis on diplomacy, de-escalation and the primacy of international law, particularly as it relates to the governance of markets, digital platforms and political systems. If democracy and the rule of law erodes anywhere, it threatens stability everywhere.

With more than 40 countries from Europe, Africa and the Americas involved in the new movement, this progressive internationalism revives the logic of dialogue between the global north and south that characterised the cold-war era. But it is turbocharged by Sánchez’s charismatic leadership and a renewed progressive energy spilling over from the US, most notably by a new generation of politicians such as Zohran Mamdani. In this context, Sánchez emerges as a leader to rally around, even if he is backed by a fragile coalition government at home.

Like Willy Brandt and Olof Palme before him, Sánchez seeks to bridge divides between the global north and south and to translate the latter’s demands into terms western governments can act on. Brandt, a former German chancellor, and Palme, who served twice as Swedish premier, were leading figures in European social democracy. In the 1970s and 80s they were standard bearers of the movement for a fairer international order. The landmark Brandt Report in 1980 called for wealth transfers and structural reforms to support developing countries. Respected and admired by the left but seen as divisive by conservatives, Palme was a vocal advocate of a foreign policy that emphasised disarmament, solidarity with anti-colonial movements and dialogue over confrontation. Together, the pair helped legitimise “north-south dialogue” as a central pillar of progressive foreign policy.

The former West German chancellor Willy Brandt (fourth from left) in Dakar, 1987.
The former West German chancellor Willy Brandt (fourth from left) in Dakar, 1987. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The new progressive internationalism echoes this approach. But unlike their predecessors, Sánchez, Lula and others recognise that a combination of redistribution, peace and dialogue is not sufficient. Today’s task is also to reclaim and reassert democratic control over the economic, digital and geopolitical system that nationalists are challenging.

The renewed momentum behind these new progressive visions of the world is not accidental. It reflects a political landscape in which the transatlantic alignment of national-populist movements is beginning to fracture. Symbolic of this shift is the electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who was long seen as an intellectual reference point for the Trump administration and other rightwing leaders.

Progressive internationalism and strategic liberalism both offer a path to rebuild the rules-based order; the former focusing on its legitimacy, the latter on managing risk and preserving openness.

Yet the limits of this emerging unity on the centre-left are also visible. Many European leaders continue to run up against realpolitik constraints. Germany’s vice-chancellor, the SPD leader Lars Klingbeil, foregrounds Europe’s security challenges, arguing that a strong Germany is the precondition for a strong continent. Sánchez and others have been vocal on Gaza, quieter on Ukraine, but diverging perspectives shaped by geography, history and domestic politics make unity hard to find. For Keir Starmer, the challenge is no less consequential: to reposition Britain’s role in Europe between sovereignty and cooperation, and to define what a credible international role looks like after Brexit.

Some in this coalition want radical global transformation, others are incrementalists; crises loom larger in some places than others; some bet on America bouncing back, and others concentrate more on decoupling. Sustaining unity despite these differences will be vital as the counter-Trumpian movement gains pace.

  • Florian Ranft is a member of the management board at Das Progressive Zentrum, a thinktank based in Berlin

opinion

  • The Guardian view on Trump, Merz and Europe’s security: EU countries cannot go it alone

  • The Guardian view on the green transition: politicians should speed it up – and households too

  • Ben Jennings on Reform UK and this week’s local elections – cartoon

  • Sometimes less is more. Next time you see your doctor ask about ‘de-prescribing’

  • Germany’s military power is on the rise. This time it must be firmly embedded in Europe

  • More unbridled nastiness from Reform – but would it really create migrant detention centres in Green-voting areas?

  • Democrats are counting on Trump’s unpopularity to save them. It won’t

  • Want a green card? Better make sure you haven’t criticized Israel on social media

More from Opinion

  • The supreme court trusts America not to be racist. I don’t

  • The Guardian view on Trump, Merz and Europe’s security: EU countries cannot go it alone

  • Germany’s military power is on the rise. This time it must be firmly embedded in Europe

  • Democrats are counting on Trump’s unpopularity to save them. It won’t

  • Want a green card? Better make sure you haven’t criticized Israel on social media

  • Yes, the king’s US visit will go down in history: it marked the death throes of an old era

  • The Guardian view on China’s carrots and sticks: Trump should not shift on Taiwan when he visits Beijing

  • Young Americans have soured on Trump

  • Trump may not be a fan of clean energy but Iran war is accelerating global shift from oil and gas

Millionaire taxes gain steam as states face budget crunches

Millionaire taxes gain steam as states face budget crunches

 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/5/4/800031581/national/millionaire-taxes-gain-steam-as-states-face-budget-crunches/

 

Millionaire taxes gain steam as states face budget crunches

New York, NY- April 30: Tax The Rich Rally At Gov. Kathy Hochul's Midtown Manhattan Office on April 30, 2026 Credit: Camara Porter/AdMedia /MediaPunch /IPX
Attribution: APDemonstrators attend a “Tax the Rich” rally on April 30 in midtown Manhattan.

Lawmakers in at least a dozen states have proposed hiking taxes on the wealthy.

By Kevin Hardy for Stateline


While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.


Related | Why Republicans don’t actually give a damn about affordability


The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

Rising wealth inequality

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.


Related | Unless you’re a billionaire, Trump just raised your taxes


“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

Cartoon by Jack Ohman
Attribution: Jack Ohman/Tribune Content Agency

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Multiyear efforts

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.


Related | More states are taxing the ultra-rich—Washington is the latest


In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Daily Kos is free for everyone—no paywall, no barriers. Help keep it that way

Daily Kos is committed to keeping all our content free. That's why we don't have a paywall, and never will. However, Daily Kos' revenue is down, and we may not be able to continue producing the quality of work you have come to expect from us. Donations from our readers are our largest source of income. If you value independent, accessible, paywall-free journalism, please consider making a donation today.

$