Business
Commentary: Ted Cruz and his GOP colleagues are pushing yet another tax break for the 1%
America’s beleaguered 1%, backed by their supporters in Congress, are pleading for your sympathy.
They say they’re treated unfairly by the federal tax code, you see, because inflation has sapped the value of their most cherished tax break, the preferential tax rate on capital gains. And they want it fixed.
Inflation, says Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the leading proponent of this idea, has been “turning gains into an unfair tax burden.” Last year, he proposed to rectify this injustice via the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act of 2025.
That was a rerun of similar bills he introduced in 2018 and 2021. None of them passed, so this time around, he’s proposing to circumvent Congress entirely by persuading President Trump to enact the break by presidential fiat.
The argument proponents make sounds logical until you think about it.
— Steve Wamhoff, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (2019)
The reaction by legal and economic experts outside the GOP echo chamber has been overwhelmingly negative. Whether Trump could enact the tax break via executive order is dubious , they say, and in any event the break is unwarranted and economically unwise.
“The argument proponents make,” wrote Steve Wamhoff of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in 2019, “sounds logical until you think about it.” The legal and economic considerations haven’t changed since then.
As Wamhoff observed, there’s a certain amount of superficial logic underlying the argument that inflation in effect raises the tax rate charged on capital gains — the profits investors pocket from increases in the value of their stocks and bonds over time.
That’s because of how the gain is calculated. The math starts with the “basis,” the price originally paid for the asset, and proceeds to the final sale price. The difference is subject to the capital gains tax.
If the asset has been held for more than a year, the gain is taxed at a rate that tops out at 20%. This year, the rate is zero for taxpayers with income up to $48,350 ($96,700 for couples) and 15% for those with income up to $533,400 ($600,050 for couples). The top rate of 20% kicks in for those with incomes higher than that.
Gains on assets held for less than a year are taxed at the higher rates due on ordinary income, which this year top out at 37% on incomes over $640,600 ($768,700 for couples).
The issue raised by the proponents of change is that the basis is calculated on a pre-inflation value, but the gain on post-inflation values. Therefore, they assert, at least some of the gains reported by investors are due not to real advances in an asset’s value, but to inflation. They say no one should be taxed on inflation.
To illustrate, if you bought a share of stock for $5 a decade ago and then sold it for $9, your capital gain of $4 is subject to the tax. But if the value’s increase matched the inflation rate over that period, Wamhoff noted, “you have not genuinely profited.” Indeed, if your gain was less than the inflation rate, you might even be charged tax on an inflation-adjusted loss.
The remedy that Cruz proposes is to adjust the original basis for inflation. Say that due to inflation alone, that share of stock might have gained $3 in value. If one raises the basis by $3, the real taxable gain would be $1, not $4, quite a difference for the taxpayer.
There are a few problems with this narrative. Among the chief rationales for the lower tax rate on capital gains is to counter the effect of inflation. Adding the inflation indexing of the basis would mean accommodating inflation twice.
Another issue would be finding the right inflation index. Proponents of indexing typically cite the consumer price index, but that’s only one of numerous inflation measures the government calculates. Because the index tracks changes in the price of purchased goods, it’s not necessarily the right measure to adjust the values of capital assets such as stocks and bonds.
Then there’s the question of why only capital gains should be singled out for a special inflation adjustment. “Inflation distorts all forms of capital income and expense, not just capital gains,” observed Elena Patel of the Brookings Institution earlier this month. “Interest, dividends, rents: all of them partly reflect inflation.”
The impact of this change on the federal budget can’t be overlooked. The cost over 10 years, according to the Yale Budget Lab, would be $169 billion if the indexing rule were imposed only on newly purchased capital assets, but nearly $1 trillion if it were applied retrospectively to stocks and bonds already held by investors.
Also at issue is whether America’s rich really need another tax break. The tax cuts delivered by Republicans and Trump in 2017, during his first term, are estimated to be worth $1.5 trillion or more over 10 years. They were made permanent by the GOP budget bill enacted last year; the fiscal hawks at the Committee for a Responsible Budget estimate the cost of those provisions at more than $2.4 trillion over the next decade.
All that comes on top of a general reduction in top marginal federal income tax rates that have reduced them to the lowest level in a half-century.
As for the assertion by Cruz that inflation “will boost savings, spur investment, and create jobs nationwide,” there’s little evidence for that. Economists generally have calculated that whatever economic growth could be ascribed to the change would be washed out by the revenue loss from inflation-indexing only new purchases, and utterly swamped by the cost of indexing all holdings, past and future.
Nevertheless, Republicans have been relentless in trying to secure this tax break for their rich patrons. Legislation to enact the indexation of capital gains taxes was introduced in 1978, 1983, 1994, 1997 and 1998. Cruz introduced his own bills in 2018, 2021 and 2025.
All those efforts flopped in Congress. Accordingly, the advocates of inflation-indexing of capital gains have dusted off a workaround that first surfaced in 1992, during the George H. W. Bush administration. This is for the Treasury to rule on its own authority that “basis” means “inflation-adjusted cost.”
The Department of Justice and the Treasury subjected the question of whether the change could be made without congressional action to their gimlet-eyed scrutiny, and turned thumbs-down. “Not only did I not think we could, I did not think that a reasonable argument could be made to support that position,” then-Atty. Gen. William Barr said later. The Bush administration dropped the idea.
But Cruz, along with Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have urged Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to revive it. Eight Republican lawmakers joined the parade, asserting in a March 5 letter that such a move would be “a straightforward administrative action grounded in fairness and sound tax policy.” (The Treasury Department didn’t respond to my request for comment.)
It should go without saying that with Democrats campaigning on an “affordability” platform, this idea sounds like political poison. It’s impossible to see it as anything other than a handout to the rich. How do we know this? Because it’s only the rich who have any significant exposure to the capital gains tax.
According to IRS data, about 75% of the income of the median American household, which earned about $84,000 in 2024, came from wages and only about 1.1% from capital gains. In the wealthiest households — those with $10 million or more in annual income— only about 12% came from wages but nearly half came from capital gains.
That may understate the value of capital gains for the wealthy. As Ed Kleinbard, the late taxation guru at USC, was fond of pointing out, the capital gains tax is our only truly voluntary tax. That’s because no one has to pay it until they sell the asset. If they hold it until their death, their heirs pay nothing, thanks to the “step-up” in basis for inherited wealth, which revalues the asset to its price as of the death of the owner, extinguishing the tax forever on what could be decades of gains.
After 48 years of unsuccessful politicking, one might be tempted to call the idea of indexing capital gains a certified washout. But when it comes to the GOP’s cherished hobby horses, it’s always too early to tell.
Bruce Bartlett, who served as an adviser to the Reagan and H. W. Bush administrations but has since become a most percipient critic of modern GOP economic nostrums, says the GOP’s peculiar genius is to keep even its unpopular policies simmering away in the expectation that, at some point in the future, a window will open up to get them enacted. That’s how they got abortion rights rescinded by the Supreme Court in 2022 — after 49 years of fighting against Roe vs. Wade.
When a GOP proposal fails to pass, Bartlett told me, “They put it on the shelf when the time isn’t right and when the situation changes they pull it off the shelf, dust it off, and they are ready to go again. … The left doesn’t do this. It waits until the political opportunity is ripe to even begin preparing. By the time they are ready, the opportunity has passed.”
The Republican fixation on relieving their rich patrons of the burden of capital gains taxes isn’t surprising. As I’ve reported in the past, the capital gains preference rate is the most valuable tax break the wealthy receive.
That’s because, in addition to being voluntary, as Kleinbard noted, it’s uncapped — unlike, say the deduction of mortgage interest.
This proposal doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. Isn’t it time for the proponents to drop the subject already?
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.
If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.
Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.
As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.
Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.
“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”
The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.
The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.
While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.
The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.
The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.
“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”
The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”
While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.
“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”
The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.
As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.
Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”
While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.
“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”
Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.
Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.
“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”
-
Los Angeles, Ca36 minutes agoCalifornia primary election results: governor and L.A. mayor races
-
Detroit, MI56 minutes agoAnother bribery scandal hits Detroit. It involves the People Mover
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoWhat a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoVIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.
