Activists from the U.K. action group Everyone Hates Elon and Greenpeace Italy unfolded a banner reading, “If you can rent Venice for your wedding, you can pay more tax,” on Piazza San Marco in the Italian city on June 23, 2025. (Photo: Michele Lapini/Greenpeace)
“This isn’t just about one person—it’s about changing the rules so no billionaire can dodge responsibility, anywhere,” said one Greenpeace campaigner.
Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—the third- or fourth-richest person on the planet, depending on the list—is hosting various wedding events in Venice, Italy, this week, festivities that have drawn protests, including a massive banner on Monday.
Activists with Greenpeace Italy and the U.K. action group Everyone Hates Elon—targeting Elon Musk, U.S. President Donald Trump’s close far-right ally and the wealthiest person on Earth—unfolded a banner that read, “If you can rent Venice for your wedding, you can pay more tax,” in Piazza San Marco.
“While Venice is sinking under the weight of the climate crisis, billionaires are partying like there is no tomorrow on their megayachts,” Greenpeace campaigner Clara Thompson said in a statement. “This isn’t just about one person—it’s about changing the rules so no billionaire can dodge responsibility, anywhere.”
“The real issue is a broken system that lets billionaires skip out on their fair share of taxes while everyone else is left to foot the bill,” she argued. “That’s why we need fair, inclusive tax rules, and they must be written at the U.N.”
Jeff Bezos pays his staff poverty wages and dodges tax. No wonder he can afford to shut down half of Venice for his wedding this week. Tax billionaires NOW.Location: Piazza San Marco, Venice@greenpeace.org #JeffBezos #TaxTheSuperRich
Reporting on Monday’s display of the banner—which features Bezos’ face and is about 65 feet long and wide—Reuters detailed:
Local police arrived to talk to activists and check their identification documents, before they rolled up their banner.
“The problem is not the wedding, the problem is the system. We think that one big billionaire can’t rent a city for his pleasure,” Simona Abbate, one of the protesters, told Reuters.
A spokesperson from Everyone Hates Elon similarly said in a Monday statement that “as governments talk about hard choices and struggle to fund public services, Jeff Bezos can afford to shut down half a city for days on end just to get married.”
“Just weeks ago, he spent millions on an 11-minute space trip,” the spokesperson added, referring to the Blue Origin flight for multiple public figures, including Bezos’ fiancée, Lauren Sánchez. “If there was ever a sign billionaires like Bezos should pay wealth taxes, it’s this.”
Bezos and Sánchez’s event planners, Lanza and Baucina, toldCNN: “Rumors of ‘taking over’ the city are entirely false and diametrically opposed to our goals and to reality… From the outset, instructions from our client and our own guiding principles were abundantly clear: the minimizing of any disruption to the city.”
The details surrounding Bezos’ marriage to the former news anchor have been closely guarded, but CNN reported that around 30 of Venice’s 280 water taxis are thought to be reserved, the city’s nine yacht ports are booked, and one source said that special permission has been granted for private helicopters.
While Venice’s mayor and regional governor Luca Zaia have defended the billionaire’s luxury wedding events, citing economic benefits for local businesses, “the ‘No Space for Bezos’ movement—a play on words also referring to the bride’s recent space flight—has united a dozen Venetian organizations including housing advocates, anti-cruise ship campaigners, and university groups,” according toThe Associated Press.
The Bloomberg and Forbes lists tracking global billionaires put Bezos’ net worth between $223.4 billion and $231 billion as of Monday. At times in recent years, he has been believed to be the richest person in the world.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025
REFORM UK’s proposed change to non-dom tax rules were branded today a “bonanza for billionaires” that would cost the public purse £34 billion a year.
Party leader Nigel Farage insisted the change would be “very attractive” despite admitting he’s “not clever enough” to answer questions about the suggested hit to Britain’s economy.
Image added by dizzy ;). Nigel Farage says he’s too stupid to answer questions about the hit to the UK economy of his plans to suck up to the uber-rich.
He said that he believed “tens of thousands of people” would come to Britain “on this ticket” if Reform was successful.
The far-right party said that it would reinstate non-dom status for wealthy individuals in exchange for a £250,000 one-off fee which would be given to Britain’s poorest workers.
Under the “Britannia Card,” non-doms would be offered a 10-year renewable residence permit and a return to the controversial arrangement whereby overseas income can be shielded from British tax.
They would also avoid inheritance tax, with the one-off payment then being distributed to Britain’s bottom 10 per cent of earners.
The Labour government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where British residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the country.
Today Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said that the policy would cost Britain £34 billion
Reform UK is proposing a “Britannia card” that would let wealthy foreigners pay a £250k fee to move to the UK and live here exempt from all tax on their foreign assets. All fees received would be distributed, “Robin Hood”-style, to the 2.5 million lowest-paid workers in the UK.
Reform UK don’t include any analysis of the cost of their proposal. Our analysis of OBR data suggests the cost would likely be around £34bn over five years.
…
[T]he card would provide a very large and expensive tax windfall to a small number of very wealthy people who are already here. Office for Budget Responsibility data shows that this would amount to £34bn of lost Government revenue over five years. That would have to be funded by either tax increases or spending cuts.
“We’re just bringing the super-rich into the same tax bracket as the middle class,” said Barreirinhas
Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad’s policy of taxing the “super rich” yielded unprecedented returns of R$ 20.6 billion (US$ 3.32 billion) to the South American country’s coffers in 2024, Federal Revenue Secretary Robinson Barreirinhas confirmed Tuesday. The strategy focuses on exclusive investment funds and offshore assets, it was explained.
Under the new scheme, previously untaxed exclusive funds now contributed R$ 13 billion (US$ 2.10 billion), while offshore investments added R$ 7.67 billion (US$ 1.24 billion), thus closing legal loopholes allowing the wealthy to dodge substantial contributions. “This is about justice,” Barreirinhas argued. According to Brazilian Government figures, the economy grew by around 3.5% last year.
A small tax on just seven of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies could grow the UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage by more than 2000% and help address the costs of extreme weather events, according to new analysis published today by Greenpeace International and Stamp Out Poverty. The organisations are calling for a long term global tax on fossil fuel extraction, with year-on-year increases, combined with taxes on excess profits and other levies.
A ‘Climate Damages Tax’ would put a cost on every tonne of carbon emitted by the coal, oil and gas extracted – starting at $5 per tonne and rising each year thereafter. If it was imposed on ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, TotalEnergies, BP, Equinor and ENI it could raise $15 billion in the first year alone to help the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries pay for the escalating cost of damage caused by climate change. Currently, just $702 million has been pledged to the loss and damage fund, while the combined profits of those fossil fuel companies exceeds $148 billion.
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)
Earlier this month, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, French President Emmanuel Macron and Kenyan President William Ruto stated their support for a Climate Damages Tax.
The briefing also highlights the financial costs of some of this year’s worst weather events that have been attributed to climate change, totalling over $64bn. These include Hurricane Beryl, Hurricane Helene, the heatwave in India in May, Typhoon Carina/Gaemi, the floods in Brazil in May, and the floods in Kenya and Tanzania in April. The costs of damage from the disasters surveyed range from US$2.9bn (Typhoon Carina) to US$ 25bn (heatwaves in India), and present just a fraction of the total cost of loss and damage globally over the last year.
A Climate Damages Tax imposed only on wealthy OECD countries could play an essential role in helping the poorest and most vulnerable to rebuild after climate-related disasters. Increasing annually by US$5 per tonne of CO2-equivalent based on the volumes of oil and gas extracted, the tax could raise an estimated US$900 billion by 2030 to support governments and communities around the world as they face growing climate impacts.
“While oil and gas giants keep raking in grotesque levels of profit from exploiting resources, the damages resulting from the industry’s operations are disproportionately borne by people who did not cause the crisis,” said David Hillman, Director of Stamp Out Poverty. “A climate damages tax – along with other levies on fossil fuels and high-emitting sectors – will make polluters pay for the cost of climate impacts, as well as supporting workers and affected communities in the transition to clean energy, jobs, and transport.”
“Who should pay? This is fundamentally an issue of climate justice and it is time to shift the financial burden for the climate crisis from its victims to the polluters behind it,” said Abdoulaye Diallo, Co-Head of Greenpeace International’s Stop Drilling Start Paying campaign. “Our analysis lays bare the scale of the challenge posed by climate loss and damage and the urgent need for innovative solutions to raise the funds to meet it. We reject Big Oil’s assault on people and democracy and call on governments worldwide to adopt the Climate Damages Tax and other mechanisms to extract revenue from the oil and gas industry.”
The Loss and Damage Fund was announced at COP27 in Egypt to help developing countries pay for impacts of natural disasters caused by climate change. Recently renamed the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), it currently has US$702 million in pledged funds. According to Greenpeace International and Stamp Out Poverty’s calculations, a Climate Damages Tax levied on seven major international oil and gas companies would add in the first year alone US$15.02 billion, corresponding to over 21 times what is currently pledged to the fund.
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
U.S. President Donald Trump smiles at House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) after speaking about the passage of tax cut legislation at the White House in Washington, D.C. on December 20, 2017. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
In legislatures, the courts, and our executive offices, we have a system rigged in favor of the ultra-rich, rigged by everything from acts of Congress and judicial rulings to IRS budgets and audit policies.
By all appearances, former U.S. President Donald Trump has cut a sweet deal with a dozen or two of America’s richest billionaires: Finance his campaign and he’ll keep their federal taxes super low—or even lower them—once he’s sitting back in the White House.
How much do billionaires like this deal? This much: In April, hedge fund billionaire John Paulsen held a Palm Beach fundraiser for Trump that brought in $50.5 million. Immediately after Trump’s late May conviction on 34 felony counts in Manhattan, Timothy Mellon, the grandson of the classic plutocrat Andrew Mellon, ponied up $50 million. Miriam Adelson, the billionaire widow of Las Vegas kingpin Sheldon Adelson, appears eager to kick in as much as $100 million.
This past spring, meanwhile, billionaires Elon Musk and David Sacks reportedly held a secret dinner party for Trump, with attendees including the illustrious deep pockets Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, and Michael Milken.
The rich themselves have actually become more brazen about avoiding taxes. Just try to stop us, they seem to be saying.
America’s billionaires clearly see politics as one route to ensuring they pay as little as possible at tax time. But they don’t just make their presence felt at election time. America’s rich have their thumbs firmly on the scale of all three branches of government. In legislatures, the courts, and our executive offices, we have a system rigged in favor of the ultra-rich, rigged by everything from acts of Congress and judicial rulings to IRS budgets and audit policies.
Some of this rigging we can all easily see. The dividends and long-term capital gains of the ultra-rich have for decades faced a maximum tax rate barely half the maximum rate applicable to other forms of income. And the investment income of the rich, unlike the paychecks of working people, faces no Social Security tax.
In 2017, the first year of the Trump presidency, intense lobbying efforts helped rich business owners to a special tax rate for their business income. In 2018 alone, according to ProPublica, that special rate translated into a $67 million gift to Mike Bloomberg, whose personal wealth now reportedly exceeds $100 billion.
But these glaring privileges the rich enjoy at tax time only tell part of the billionaire tax story. Other parts get precious little attention. In 2004, for instance, lawmakers in Congress enacted a penalty for the failure to disclose potentially abusive tax avoidance transactions on tax returns. The penalty on the surface looked substantial: 75% of the tax sought to be avoided. But Congress capped the penalty at $100,000, a move that turned the penalty into a minor nuisance for billionaires seeking to avoid millions of dollars in taxes.
In our current rich people-friendly tax climate, IRS staff who want to do the right thing face tough going. Recently, for example, one former IRS staffer, Michael Welu, went public with his concerns that the IRS itself has both official and unofficial policies that end up treating audited rich taxpayers much more gently than small business owners.
Welu found the upper management of the IRS division tasked with auditing the super rich—and the corporations they run—distinctly uninterested in investigating America’s richest and their “most egregious, ridiculous schemes” for avoiding taxes.
IRS officials like Michael Welu do occasionally speak out. But only tax wonks truly have any real sense of how much obscure tax code penalties and IRS audit policies favor the rich. And most of those tax wonks work for the rich.
The rich themselves have actually become more brazen about avoiding taxes. Just try to stop us, they seem to be saying.
Take the recently decided Supreme Court case, Moore v. United States. Working through an array of right-wing organizations, the conservative mover-and-shaker Leonard Leo attempted to use a challenge to an obscure one-time tax as a vehicle to preempt Congress from ever taxing the wealth or unrealized gains of the ultra-rich. Ultimately, the court decided the case without ruling on whether the rich can be taxed on their wealth or unrealized gains. But the opinions that four of the nine justices handed down made it clear that they stand prepared to do the billionaire bidding should a direct challenge to a tax on the wealth or unrealized gains of billionaires come before them.
Billionaires now have at least three Supreme Court justices firmly in their pockets. Reporting by ProPublica has revealed the massive gifts that have been flowing from Harlan Crow and other billionaires to Justice Clarence Thomas as well as the generous gifts that billionaire Paul Singer has been sending Justice Samuel Alito’s way. Justice Neil Gorsuch has had his entire career, including his appointment to the court, funded by the billionaire Philip Anschutz.
Those three justices, along with Justice Amy Coney-Barret, have now made it patently obvious they will not allow billionaires to be taxed on their unrealized gains or their wealth. Does anyone really think the billionaires won’t have the crucial, majority-making fifth vote from Justice Brett Kavanaugh when they need it?
Republican members of Congress are showing even less shame than our Supreme Court justices. Last year, these GOP lawmakers held the country hostage in negotiations to increase the country’s debt limit. Their price for agreeing to raise the debt limit, thereby avoiding a default on the country’s debt? They demanded—and won—a reduction in a scheduled IRS budget increase that would been used to increase enforcement moves against rich taxpayers.
The purported motive for this legislative hostage taking—“concern” over the federal deficit—made for an absurd justification. The proposed increase in the IRS budget would have been recovered, several times over, through increased tax collections. The IRS budget reductions the Republican lawmakers extracted will, in fact, only increase the federal deficit. But those reductions will serve a political purpose. They’ll protect the GOP’s richest patrons from tax enforcement.
The mainstream media, to no one’s surprise, did a miserable job of exposing this Republican dishonesty in the debt limit negotiations. But at one point in our recent past a courageous soul did emerge to expose the rot in our tax system. What happened? The ultra-rich and their henchmen in Congress make sure that this soul faced a punishment far more severe than any punishment ever meted out to those few rich Americans who actually get caught evading their taxes due.
That courageous soul, Charles Littlejohn, worked as an IRS contractor. He leaked tax return information related to Trump and America’s billionaires to TheNew York Times and ProPublica. ProPublica used that leaked information to write over 50 stories about billionaire tax avoidance, embarrassing and angering many of our richest in the process. Two of them even brought lawsuits, one against the IRS and the other against Littlejohn’s employer.
Ultimately, Littlejohn pled guilty to one count of unauthorized tax return information disclosure, a crime that carries a recommended sentence of four to 10 months. But 25 Republican members of Congress, undoubtedly at the behest of their billionaire patrons, wrote the judge in the case and urged the harshest possible sentence of five years. The judge obliged, stating in her sentencing remarks that Littlejohn posed a graver threat to democracy than the January 6 rioters. As tax law professor Reuven Avi-Yonah has noted, Littlejohn is now serving a sentence far harsher than any imposed on rich Americans convicted of tax evasion.
Littlejohn’s extreme sentence did not reflect the one single count of unauthorized tax return information disclosure he pled guilty to. That sentence reflects his “crime” of exposing the tax avoidance of the billionaire class.
Try this thought experiment: Imagine if Littlejohn had released the return information of 1,000 or so taxpayers with modest incomes to ProPublica. Imagine that ProPublica had then publicly detailed all the tip income that servers and bartenders among these taxpayers had failed to report and all the social meals that small business owners in the sample had claimed as business expenses. If Littlejohn had then pled to one count of unauthorized disclosure, would 25 members of Congress have intervened? Would the judge have imposed a sentence over six times the maximum recommended in federal sentencing guidelines?
Doesn’t it become dangerous to society when the punishment for a crime depends on who the victim happens to be?
We are now living that danger. Our billionaires sit firmly in control. And they will do whatever it takes to make sure they never pay tax at an appropriate level—even if that means locking a human being up for a preposterously long time just to send a message.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025
