At 33, Taylor Swift is on her way to becoming the US’ youngest self-made female billionaire and one of the few magnate millennials who has not made her fortune from meme stocks and cryptocurrency.
Her Eras Tour concert film, released on Oct. 13, had advance sales of more than US$100 million, which was expected to double within weeks. The tour itself has already become the highest-grossing concert series of all time and is on track to generate up to US$4 billion from ticket sales alone.
Swift’s great wealth — made mostly off low and middle-income young Americans — brings great responsibility. For all of her marketing power, which has recently helped to boost NFL viewership (and, yeah, the whole US economy), she has yet to make a significant mark as a philanthropist.
In an era when “billionaire” has become synonymous with anti-heroes like Elon Musk, who has brought havoc into the digital public square formerly known as Twitter and shown little interest in channeling his wealth toward the betterment of society, we need a new model for extreme affluence in the US.
Swift might not be the lone artist-entrepreneur in the under-40 billionaire’s club, but she could be the first to boldly champion causes that would serve the interests of her Gen Z and millennial fanbase, including tax reform for the wealthiest Americans and climate change.
Sure, the singer-songwriter has a track record of generosity, making piecemeal donations in the tens of thousands to alleviate medical bills or personal financial stresses for one fan or family at a time. She has also contributed to cancer research and donated to food banks along the Eras Tour route.
Yet investing meaningfully in the priorities of her fans would look different, and the public should expect her to give back on an ambitious scale. Swift is well positioned to do this not just because she is a powerful lever of capitalism, but because of her role as an industry iconoclast. She has challenged misogyny, championed artists’ rights and helped shift the paradigm of intellectual property ownership. She has also helped to reinvent the traditional album release model and radically pushed the boundaries of fan engagement.
Going forward, Swift has two crucial opportunities to seize:
First, she should openly and proudly welcome US President Joe Biden’s proposed tax on the ultra-rich. “It’s time billionaires paid at least a 25 percent minimum tax,” Biden recently tweeted, echoing a plan he introduced last March.
The president’s proposal, which has been introduced in the US Congress last year as the “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act,” honors the sensibilities and economic realities of Swift’s young fanbase.
As a paragon of marketing and commercialism, Swift should bear in mind that more than half of Gen Z and millennials say they have a negative view of capitalism. Today, many in Swift’s age group are also struggling with unprecedented levels of student loan and credit card debt, even as many spend thousands on her concert tickets and merchandise.
The overall effective tax rate of the ultra-wealthy in the US has plummeted in recent decades. In 1970 it was 75 percent, in 2004 it was 35 percent, and it is 8.2 percent today. In that context, a 25 percent tax rate is a paltry ask. Welcoming Biden’s minimum tax rate would be on brand with Swift’s love of tradition and her progressive, patriotic “Miss Americana” profile.
Second, a somewhat larger challenge for Swift would be to acknowledge and begin to redress her profligate climate impact. It has been widely covered that her carbon footprint via her private jet last year alone was nearly 2,000 times the global average and about 650 times the per-capita emissions of the average US citizen. In response, Swift’s team has offered a bafflingly evasive statement saying she loaned her jet out to friends.
The Eras Tour has exponentially increased this impact — not just through the singer’s personal travel and that of her crew, but by the fans traveling to her events across 146 shows on five continents and indulging in a rash of conspicuous consumption. After the tour ends and the glitter is swept from the floor, this decadence could well backfire.
The superstar knows firsthand the pain of being canceled and has the power to avoid it.
She could start by disclosing a transparent analysis of the full carbon impact of her extended Eras Tour and a clear inventory of her efforts to reduce it. In August, a spokesperson for Swift told Business Insider that she purchased offsets for personal jet travel for the tour, but it was not independently verified, and her concert site mentions no climate strategy. Swift should commit to carbon-neutral touring, which goes well beyond personal air travel to include efficient stadium lighting, sustainable food vendors and limits on single-use plastics. Doing this would be far less painful than enduring public criticism for doing nothing.
This would be a first step toward the greater project of setting new standards for 21st-century US billionaires because it demonstrates what is possible when extraordinary personal success can benefit not just the individual but the multitudes.
After all, Swift’s wealth has been built by multitudes of young consumers. Investing in their future is not just the morally defensible path forward but an economically strategic one that would enable Swift to shake off the burdens of her profligacy.
Amanda Little is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering agriculture and climate. She is a professor at Vanderbilt University and author of The Fate of Food: What We’ll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS