Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Is Running Out of Fake Money to Pay for Her Terrible Ideas

Warren says her wealth tax math "clearly" adds up. It doesn't.


Elizabeth Warren has finally finished spending all the fake money she intends to raise from her wealth tax, a policy that is unlikely to be enacted, and, were it somehow to become law, would almost certainly raise substantially less money than she claims. 

The latest idea that Warren wants to finance with her wealth tax is an $800 billion plan to spend more on public schools, which includes grants for schools with low-income and disabled students, as well as $50 billion for school infrastructure. The plan follows a $1.25 trillion plan to make public college tuition free and cancel a substantial amount of student debt, as well as a $700 billion plan to fund child care. 

(Warren previously wanted to pay for a $100 billion opioid plan, a $7 billion small business fund, and a $20 billion "election security" plan with the tax as well; she now says they will be paid for with additional taxation of inheritance. She's not even the Democratic nominee, much less president, and already she is exhausting her supply of imaginary tax revenue.) 

All together, the three education and childcare focused plans would cost about $2.75 trillion over a decade—precisely the amount that she says her wealth tax would raise. 

That alone should raise suspicions, but in Warren's telling, it all adds up perfectly. And in recent days, she has explicitly defended the tax on the grounds that the revenue math is solid. "Do the math. It clearly is enough. We have made very conservative estimates on the revenue. I have consulted with tax experts about it, with economists about it, and the money is there," she said at a campaign rally yesterday. 

Or maybe it isn't. Since Warren first proposed her wealth tax, it has come under intense scrutiny for being unworkable, unpassable, and unrealistic in its revenue projections. 

The first problem with using a wealth tax to finance Warren's plans is political. Even with unified Democratic control of Congress, an unlikely proposition, it's hard to imagine that a wealth tax would actually pass. The second problem is practical. It is quite difficult to calculate wealth, especially for the richest households, which tend to have obscure assets, as well as the resources to shield their fortunes from evaluation. Indeed, capital flight is one of the reasons why the large majority of developed economies that have adopted wealth taxes have also abandoned them. In a survey of economic experts conducted by Chicago Booth earlier this year, for example, 73 percent agreed Warren's wealth tax would be "much more difficult to enforce than existing federal taxes" thanks to complications arising from valuation and tax evasion.  

Meanwhile, Warren's insistence that the math adds up ignores the very real academic debates over the source of her estimates. One study presented at the National Bureau of Economic Research this summer, for example, found that Warren's numbers vastly over-estimate the amount of wealth that would be available to tax, suggesting that it would raise far less revenue than what she projects. 

Warren's underlying estimates come from Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the University of California at Berkeley, who for much of this year have been engaged in an extended argument with former Obama administration economic adviser Larry Summers, who has emerged as one of the more vocal critics of their work. 

Summers has argued that Saez and Zucman wildly underestimate tax avoidance, which would substantially reduce the amount of revenue a wealth tax would raise. In a June piece for The Washington Post, Summers strongly suggested that their optimistic estimates are both out of line with mainstream economics and influenced by political bias:

Readers may find it difficult to evaluate the technical aspects of this debate. But they should keep in mind that Saez and Zucman are writing in a commissioned letter to a presidential candidate for a campaign proposal. Meanwhile, experts with experience in tax policy scorekeeping and academics on the progressive end of the political spectrum—such as ourselves and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber—are much more pessimistic on the revenue-raising potential of wealth taxation. In this context, Saez and Zucman's indignant insistence that their $187 billion [annual revenue estimate] number is not a "best case scenario" but instead a "middle-ground" estimate seems unsound.

More recently, Summers attacked Saez and Zucman for a piece in which they claimed that billionaires are now paying a lower tax rate than the middle class, an argument that has been used to justify a wealth tax. At a panel last week, Summers said he is almost entirely persuaded that their data is "substantially inaccurate and substantially misleading."

The point is this: Warren has framed her wealth tax as a mathematical certainty, the kind of easy and obvious policy that no one could reasonably quarrel with on substance. Yet credible mainstream economists have been quarreling with it for months, offering strong evidence that her estimates are technically flawed in ways that just happen to be politically convenient for her campaign. 

This has been Elizabeth Warren's approach to politics and policy for years: Introduce a heavy-handed policy based on dubious data, then argue that no other arguments or interpretations have any ground to stand on. Her response to dissent is to deny its legitimacy or pretend it simply doesn't exist. 

"Do the math," she says. "It clearly is enough." Yet despite what Warren would have you believe, others have done the math—and they have found that it is far from clear that it's enough.

NEXT: Massachusetts Bill Would Impose $200 Fines, 6 Months in Jail for Using the Word ‘Bitch’

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dems have screwed the pooch. The most important thing to them is supposedly to beat Trump. Then they go with Socialism, gun confiscation, reparations, and eliminating fossil fuels. Lol.

    1. Times are very good. They would have a hard time beating Trump anyway. But if they had some empty suite who could be trusted not to start any wars and to keep the lunatics on the left in check, they might be able to win and then have a placeholder President who quietly made up for some of the Dem’s losses in the judiciary and at least kept them from losing ground.

      Instead, they have gone bat shit crazy and are setting themselves up for a generation of being out of power.

      1. And when an ACTUAL conservative — but with Trump’s willingness to fight — gets into the WH, they will whine about how he’s unwilling to compromise, unlike Trump.

        1. They are so stupid they don’t realize Trump is likely their last change. The next guy isn’t going to be so reasonable.

          1. yet every day they’ve been praying for Mike Pence to become President. it makes no sense.

          2. If I were in charge, the democrats would beg for the days when a,, they had to contend with was Trump. Things would go very poorly for them.

      2. “All they have to do is not act crazy, and they can’t do it.” — Glenn Reynolds

      3. They had Hickenlooper. He polled below 1 percent so he bolted.
        Now the mayor of a small Indiana town is their most sensible candidate.

  2. “It is quite difficult to calculate wealth”

    Actually it is quite simple. Your wealth is what the tax man says it is, and the tax you owe is what he says you owe.
    Write the check or go to jail.

    Next in line please – – – –

    1. Yes. The fact that such a tax is so difficult to calculate and so arbitrary and susceptible to abuse is one of the key selling points of it for Democrats. They must get a giant hard on at the thought of being able to arbitrarily tax the living fuck out of anyone they don’t like while exempting themselves.

      1. Horseshit John. It is not difficult to value. The overwhelming % of assets of the wealthy is three things:

        Publicly traded equities/bonds/etc
        Bling (tho I believe that is called ‘collectibles’ among the non-Mafia wealthy)
        Privately owned companies

        The value of the second is easy to determine and govt is already expected to comply with whatever the assessment is. It is the insurance value. Which also then determines the severity of the crime that govt charges someone else for if they steal it. Which means govt IS already protecting that property but is not charging for that service. My solution, if wealth tax is a no-go, is that govt entirely eliminates its obligation to protect property that it doesn’t even know its supposed to be protecting. It doesn’t ‘take that property’ from you – it just stands aside and declares that it doesn’t know anything about the ownership either and therefore won’t adjudicate disputes.

        Privately owned companies are also pretty easy to value. Every time one goes to a bank to get a loan, that valuation is exactly what the bank uses to decide how much of a loan – read govt-arbitrated legal tender – the business can carry. My solution, if wealth tax is a no-go, is that govt prohibits its currency from being lent to any limited-liability entity (another govt service) without the lender (also with a govt-grant of privilege) knowing the risk that said entity will end up screwing others in bankruptcy court (another govt service).

        It’s laughable that you people can’t see how in bed with govt privileges and immunities the wealthy and their high-paid help are. Just because they aren’t paying for those privileges doesn’t mean they aren’t getting them.

        Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. – Adam Smith

        Warren’s intentions with the wealth tax are totally dishonest BS. Which is a shame cuz conceptually it is the best way to reform our tax system to rely less on the highly distorting income tax.

    2. Kinda like your property value.

      1. Kind of but much more arbitrary. Property taxes are about a particular kind of property, real estate, in a defined area. This would relate to all forms of wealth and be much more arbitrary.

        1. You ever been to the valuation board and tried to argue that your house wasn’t worth as much as they say it is? Proving a negative. Talk about arbitrary.

          1. Get a decent lawyer involved, and they will immediately fold, for precisely the same reasons this tax law would be difficult to enforce. There’s a reason why tax assessors generally lowball property estimates relative to market value, particularly for nicer homes in wealthier neighborhoods.

            The exact people you’re targeting with a wealth tax have the resources to make it extremely painful to find all their wealth, much less evaluate it, and then the resources to further tie you up for three more years fighting that evaluation in court. This would be expensive to enforce and employ tax lawyers by the firmload, which is I’m sure why their industry association is in favor of it.

        2. I’ve done the property tax reduction. And if legitimate and presented with way too many factors it works. Overwhelm the system and it folds. I’ve done the zoning set back negotiation too. A lawyer helped with that and the city folded rapidly. The system normally overwhelmed us hoi poli, but we can give as well as receive. Over 40 years I’ve had 3 disputes with IRS – they were wrong each time. What did Churchill say “…. never, never …… “

        3. If that sot ever passes it will be time to get rid of all the people behind it and reset the government.

  3. Wealth is investments — houses, businesses, stocks, bonds, rentals. Yes, jewelry, art, yachts, bizjets, and other luxuries exist, but in tiny numbers compared to investments.

    As such, the valuation is entirely subjective: how much can you get someone else to pay for it? There is no W-2 or W-4 or 1099 or anything else with an official price.

    As soon as the wealth tax looks like it has a chance of passing, the value of said wealth will drop like a rock. Why? Because the only way to turn wealth into the cash necessary to pay the tax bill is to sell the wealth, and guess what? All the potential buyers are also trying to sell enough wealth to pay the tax bill. A buyer’s market, in other words — prices will drop faster than Lizzie can lie about her DNA.

    The knock-on effects will be that lower share prices mean companies have less to invest in new car models, new products, factory expansion, research and development. Anyone who thinks that’s a good idea must be named Bernie and think 23 types of deodorant is too many.

    The economy will dive. Jobs will disappear. Lizzie will have to double down, and I suspect the populace will either throw her out or embrace dictatorship, but she won’t win a second term.

    1. It would be all that and worse. If wealth is taxed, there is less incentive to accumulate it. So, people will save and invest less and consume more with their money. Buy a car and you get it with a wealth tax. Lease it and you don’t. Save your money and the government takes part of it. Blow it on consumables and at least you get to enjoy it.

      A wealth tax would if it was in any way significant just ensure that no one other than the rich would ever save or build any lasting wealth. But, I think Warren sees that result as a positive since without the security that comes with wealth, people will look to the government for security and be easier to control. Yeah, she is that fucking evil.

      1. Does she realize how much more it’d cost when people decide to stop voluntarily paying taxes?

        Forcing the IRS to audit EVERYBODY in the country?

        1. It always makes me laugh when one of the teams (usually but not always the blue team) accuses people of not paying their fair share, when americans have a shockingly high rate of tax compliance relative to the rest of the world, even other developed democracies.

          All I can say to a wealth tax is . . . do you want to be Greece? Because this is how you become Greece.

          1. ….or end up with a bunch of democrats piled into landfills when everyone else has finally had enough of their commie bullshit.

      2. Overall accumulating wealth is not really a good thing for a capitalist economy. The capital is sequestered in wealth and not moving. Its actually better for a consumer driven capitalist economy if you do take the money and spend it on some product, like a car. Having said this a wealth tax is not a good way to fund anything. Wealth is really subjective and cannot often be evaluated well. Best examples are the Trump properties. I noted in some of the testimony that the Trumps use different evaluations of wealth for different purpose. A property is valued low when considering the taxes, but valued high if its is being used as collateral for a loan. The reality is that the only real value is what is paid for a item as it passes from one owner to another. Here a realistic capital gains tax would be a better way to go.

        1. Overall accumulating wealth is not really a good thing for a capitalist economy. The capital is sequestered in wealth and not moving.

          Are you under the impression that the normal way of securing wealth is to stack up gold coins in a vault? Because that’s the only way this statement makes any sense. And it’s wrong.

          1. Exactly. “Wealth” is invested “money.” Invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc., etc,. The very modest amount of wealth I have accumulated pays for a decent retirement for me and my wife, and is used, by those I have invested it in, to provide jobs, goods, and services, including housing.

            In the end, a “wealth tax,” like virtually any other tax, is, eventually, paid by the working class, either in higher costs or more limited goods and services.

            1. You are correct in saying that the accumulation of “modest” amounts of wealth is important. That money is banked and available for when you need it. Note that while you hold it, the money has little or in some cases no effect in the economy. It is effectively held out. It is the accumulation of large amounts of wealth by small group or individuals that is concerning as this money may be lost to the economy for very long periods of time.

              1. That’s not how wealth works at all. The only types of wealth being “held out” are non- productive assets that one might hold. Things like art collections or things one used for consumption like furniture or a boat.

                The vast majority of wealth is held in productive assets. Either directly by owning a company. Or indirectly though credit intermediation. When you put money into a bank, someone else borrows those funds for investment. When you buy a stock or a bond, that’s money used by firms to invest.

                The economy is not duck tales with rich people swimming in bins of coins. Rather, taxing wealth is taxing the productive physical capital stock of the economy. And therefore economic output. This is basic undergrad Econ.

                1. Capital in the economy moves at different rates. The most productive is the money in movement. People earn wages that they spend on consumer goods providing more jobs. Invested capital moves at a slower rate in larger amounts. You don’t buy a house every week but when you do you move a lot of money. Stocks are questionable. When purchased from the company they provide capital, after that they simple move capital around outside the main economy. The value of stocks is also really based on what they can be sold for not a real value. As you noted non productive assets held for increasing value are held out of the economy. I am not arguing against wealth but rather to optimize capital in the economy. To do this you want the largest share in movement, a modest share in investments, and a very small share in non productive investments.

                2. Well, maybe not. When we say tax wealth, what folks have in mind is excessive wealth. How much that turns out to be is going to vary with the wealth distribution in the economy. Want an economy with its wealth productively employed? Tax wealth above a certain amount per taxpayer, and exempt typical holdings among the bottom 90%. Over time, the rich will be notably less wealthy, the others will be enjoying the fruits of their new-found wealth, and the economy will have more wealth productively employed.

              2. ” Note that while you hold it, the money has little or in some cases no effect in the economy.”

                Not true. About one-half the “modest” amount of money I have invested is in real estate which is rented out. Most of the other half is invested in the stock market, primarily in mutual funds. That is hardly “static.” Even the “cash” deposited in my credit union is loaned out to other people to purchase cars, houses, and start businesses.

        2. A healthy system needs potential energy as well as kinetic energy. If there’s no reservoir of potential energy (think of it like a battery), it’s all kinetic energy, like a short circuit. Which means A) it can’t last, and B) it can’t handle any external shocks and C) someone’s going to get burned.

          1. I agree with your analogy. Remember that the battery is only useful when it is in the circuit. So you want to have some batteries set aside. The question is how many batteries. My point is that small groups or individuals holding large amount of wealth or batteries, are not as useful as when the capital is in motion.

        3. Higher capital gains tax has always hurt the economy. Bill Clinton, the democrat, actually lowered capital gains tax and the economy flourished under his administration as a result. Capital gains tax forces people with investments to buy and hold much more than sell which stifles the economy more.

          1. Question here is fairness. Should the trucker driver pay a higher rate on his wages that a guy selling some of his stocks. Should a family saving for the kid’s college pay a higher rate on the bank interest than a person clipping coupons. I think all earnings should be taxed at the same rate.

        4. “Overall accumulating wealth is not really a good thing for a capitalist economy. The capital is sequestered in wealth and not moving. …”

          Been swimming in Scrooge McDuck’s pool?
          What an idiotic statement.

          1. And it was made by one of our regular idiots.

        5. its actually better for a consumer driven capitalist economy if you do take the money and spend it on some product,

          You have 10 bushels of corn. You eat 5. Are 5 bushels of corn more wealth than 10? Consumption is the destruction of wealth. Consumers don’t generate wealth. Our economy isn’t “2/3rds consumer spending.” Producers produce wealth. It’s really quite simple, which of this is causally possible:

          A) You produce and then you consume
          B) You consume and then you produce

          This shouldn’t be hard.

    2. Some wealth is pretty compact, like diamonds and bullion coins etc. I wonder how Warren thinks she’ll find it all. Have the IRS toss every house in the country?

      1. Have the IRS toss every house in the country?

        Something else that she sees as a feature of this tax instead of a bug.

      2. Or bitcoin. You could have billions in a bitcoin account that is accessed only with a phrase that’s in your head. Audit that.

      3. And while they’re in there tossing, they can just take (sorry, repurchase) those AR-15s. Save the cops/military the trouble.

    3. Further: on what day will my investments be valued? The supposed value of many of my investments fluctuates by the minute. I don’t REALLY know what someone will pay for it until I actually sell it.

    4. “Yes, jewelry, art, yachts, bizjets, and other luxuries exist, but in tiny numbers compared to investments.”

      In a wealth-tax era, all these things will be rented, not sold.

      The ultra rich and even the moderately rich can afford to restructure their income and assets to minimize by avoidance the impact of wealth tax.

  4. It adds up if you learned your math in the Seattle public school system.

    1. Damn you.

    2. LMAO….touche! 🙂

  5. she has explicitly defended the tax on the grounds that the revenue math is solid

    Didn’t she get the memo, math is oppressive.

    1. She’s 1/1024th Native American so she’s allowed to use math. It’s only when white people do math that it’s oppressive.

      1. Asian counts as white while participating in this exercise.

        1. Hello fellow member of the Harvard admissions board!

    2. Her math adds up perfectly once you factor in the beauty of math.

      1. Her math will be used to plunder natural resources.

    3. It’s solid because it went through all the SJW loops.

  6. Obviously the easiest way to implement everything she wants is to abolish money. Since her government will make sure that everyone gets what they need to live, why bother with money anymore?

    1. Yup, you start the year with 12,000 credits, to spend as you wish. Unless you violate the WrongThink or WrongSpeak policies, like denying man-made climate change. Then your account is frozen and you get sent to camp.

  7. Why do we even care about her plan being revenue neutral when we can just print more money and go deeper into debt?

    1. You don’t understand. The New New Monetary Theory is to print bills without denominations. See, when the government owns everything and disburses everything, prices are meaningless. Without prices, what is the point of differently-denominated bills?

      It’s all so very simple.

      1. Just put variables on the bills instead of fixed denominations.

  8. Warren is accidentally honest since essentially her plan is to just take whatever amount is required to make her insane plans work. That it will require ‘all the money’ for her plan is basically the point.

    She is another example of a politician promising unicorns. The fact unicorns don’t exist never stops people from buying into politicians like her.

    1. Warren seems to be coopting the erstwhile Clinton voters. Which means she’s doomed.

      1. Never underestimate the potential impact of an impeachment inquiry and how it can be used to get a Warren-type into office.

        Of course, the Clinton impeachment also tells us that’s a risky bet to make. It appears it’s the only bet the DNC is able to make, though, given the quality of candidates on the left.

      2. Except she won’t even get all of Clinton’s voters since a lot of them weren’t socialists.

    2. The fact unicorns don’t exist

      You’re welcome.

  9. $20 billion “election security” plan


    Only $20 billion? Is that all our democracy is worth to you?

  10. Progressives don’t really give a shit about honesty, though. They don’t even believe their own bullshit!

    And I’m not talking about he politicians. I’m talking about the progressives you meet in everyday life. In that culture, the more you’re willing to ignore reality, the greater your depth of commitment.

    Progressives telling lies to each other and themselves is sort of like when Nazi skinheads in prison get swastikas tattooed on their faces. It’s not enough just be a Nazi skinhead. If you want to be the leaders, like Elizabeth Warren, you have to find some way to show the depth of your commitment.

    There isn’t a constitutional right she wouldn’t violate, a lie she wouldn’t tell, a promise she wouldn’t make, a reality she wouldn’t ignore. That’s why she has street cred with her fellow progressives! If you’re gonna be the queen of the progressives, you’re gonna have to tell some whoppers.

    1. And like I keep saying, assuming their dishonest is giving them the benefit of the doubt. The next most likely alternative is that they genuinely believe that the laws of economics don’t apply to healthcare and that the Green New Deal really will make us all prosperous and give us more leisure time. I’d hate to think they were so pathetic as to really believe the stupid bullshit they say.

      1. For a long time I thought that but I have started to think that yes they really do believe the crazy shit they say.

        1. Some of them are True Believers, but I think for the most part most of them are just interested in punishing people they don’t like.

          1. Tax the rich!!

            But don’t tax me.

        2. Oh yes they do.

          Something happened in the last 15 years or so that made people literally illiberal ignoramuses.

          And I don’t mean this tongue in cheek. The shit I see and hear. Just the fact Canadians voted Justin back in despite his sexual transgressions and endless scandals (including not one, not two, not three BUT FOUR ethics violations as found by the Ethics Commissioner’s findings) and stupid antics, makes me wonder what’s in the water.

          I can but shake my head in disbelief.

      2. I think they do feel that good intentions backed up with deadly force can override the law of supply and demand. Because like fairness and stuff.

        1. Like I said, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. What you’re describing is the banality of evil–but it’s still evil.

      3. The Green New Deal will give lots of people more leisure time, since it will destroy the economy and set humanity back 2 or 3 centuries.

        Unfortunately most of that newfound leisure time will be spent hunting, scavenging, subsistence farming, and raiding people who planned ahead.

      4. If a Nobel prize winning economist believes that a winning economic strategy is to use productive resources to manufacture armaments for the purpose of dumping them in the ocean, what hope is there that the average citizen can understand the wealth-destroying impact of the Green New Deal?

    2. I’m talking about the progressives you meet in everyday life. In that culture, the more you’re willing to ignore reality, the greater your depth of commitment.

      Like the fact that many of them (white progs) are unbelievably racist, which is what they accuse conservatives of being.

      1. It is always about projection with them. Their Mo consists of projecting all of their worst instincts onto their political opponents and then using the claim that their opponents are all that as a way to rationalize their being that way themselves.

        1. man, you guys are so delusional to think that only of the left….

          Look at your orange in chief for starters.

          1. And along comes a dumb ass Prog to do exactly what I am talking about. “We don’t project, orange man bad does, so that makes it okay when we do it”.

            You people really are retarded.

          2. False dichotomy.

            If I told you to take a look in a mirror, would you see a reflection?

      2. Went to Trader Joe’s today. I like their coffee. Only thing I buy there. Medium roast, whole bean. Good stuff.

        Anyway, wasn’t a non-European in sight.

        1. The video of the London Tube riders pulling the dumb ass off the train during morning rush hour was a great example of what you are talking about. The crowd was a feel good combination of every race and class in the UK coming together for the common goal of pulling that dumb ass off the top of the train so everyone could get to work. The dumb ass on the top of the train and every other person associated with the “Extinction Rebellion” was just another dumb white person.

  11. Who cares? It didn’t stop the Republicans from adding 2 trillion (a full 10%) to the debt. At least with this you get something out of it.

    1. What’s the odds the stock market takes a healthy dive if she was elected?

      1. Ah crap, not suppose to be under whereringrit’s post.

      2. It won’t be as bad as the aftermath of Drumpf’s victory. According to Paul Krugman, the market might “never” recover from 2016.

      3. Low. Historically stock market returns have been better under Democrats than Republicans.

        1. Well it’s been good with Democrats that are in bed with wall street.

          So not Warren.

        2. High, a return to the “new normal” of sub 2% growth isn’t going to help corporate earnings. And how many years did it take for Obama to reach the peak of the stock market under Bush?

          1. How did the stock market do in 2018?

  12. “The latest idea that Warren wants to finance with her wealth tax is an $800 billion plan to spend more on public schools, which includes grants for schools with low-income and disabled students…”

    I don’t want to state explicitly where every last cent of that money would go, but I will say that it rhymes with “smeacher’s shmunions.”

  13. “”Do the math. It clearly is enough. We have made very conservative estimates on the revenue. I have consulted with tax experts about it, with economists about it, and the money is there,” she said at a campaign rally yesterday.”

    The money is there? Maybe so, but IT’S NOT YOURS.

    Christ- it’s like trying to explain something to a retarded three year old.

    1. It’s the same deal with the gun control plans, they just assume a bunch of people are going to comply despite the fact that they have absolutely no reason to comply. Rich people didn’t get that way by letting every con-man (or woman) who came along get a piece of their pie, they’re not about to start now.

    2. People who spend time thinking about what other people’s “fair share” should be (and how to get it) are the ugliest kind of people.

  14. clearly = not clearly every time. der.

  15. Lizzie’s entire career has been built on lies. Why would she change now?

    1. You just say that because you hate women!

      1. maybe he’s Shawnee.

  16. The first problem with using a wealth tax to finance Warren’s plans is political constitutional.


    1. Why?

      I would like to say because a wealth tax is not authorized by the Constitution. But neither is the ACA’s compliance tax, penaltax or whatever you want to call it. And that passed SCOTUS.

    2. Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. Wealth taxes are totally 100% unconstitutional. Not “unconstitutional-unless-we-all-pretend-it’s-a-fee-or-a-fine-or-something” — unavoidably, undeniably unconstitutional.

  17. Her tax plans aren’t about revenue, they’re about revenge.
    (h/t Kevin D. Williamson)

    1. Wyatt Earp:
      What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

      Doc Holliday:
      A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of himself. And he can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

      Wyatt Earp:
      What does he want?

      Doc Holliday:

      Wyatt Earp:
      For what?

      Doc Holliday:
      Bein’ born.

  18. She is a highly paid Harvard professor! And a Native American woman who got fired for being pregnant! How can you possibly doubt her? She is intellectually brilliant! If you don’t agree, you must be a member of the oppressive, imperialist cis-hetero patriarchy!

  19. Population=~3.2e8
    Average income of top 1% earners= 7.1e5$/ur
    Tax rate = 0.1

    =3.2e8x7.1e5x0.1=227 billion/yr x10 yr=2.27 trillion/10 yrs

    When you add in discounting and gdp growth that’s not close to 2.75 trillion over a decade?

    Most of this article seems concerned with the fact that rich people might think themselves too good to pay taxes and not about math adding up. If tax avoidance does become a problem couldn’t we just throw a couple of these tax cheat billionaires in a pound me in the arse federal penitentiary? I bet that would improve compliance.

    1. My you are a simple-minded fellow.

      Let’s say part of my evil fortune is the Mona Lisa. What’s your assessment of what it’s worth for taxation purposes?

      If tax avoidance does become a problem couldn’t we just throw a couple of these tax cheat billionaires in a pound me in the arse federal penitentiary?

      And here we get to the heart of the matter.

      What’s your art collection worth? Maybe we make an example of you, comrade.

      1. I’m just doing math, madam. Geesch!

        1. You’re taking a calculus problem and pretending it’s an arithmetic problem.

          “Just doing math,” indeed.

          1. with imaginary numbers no less

            1. What’s imaginary about them?

      2. i’m talking about an income tax— achievable by roughly removing the income cap on social security taxes— just to demonstrate that all this talk about how we can’t possibly pay for all these programs taken for granted in other European countries is horseshit. You can tax rich people more and the numbers absolutely add up.

        1. What’s the maximum percentage of GDP that’s ever been raised in tax revenue, how has it changed over time, and what factors can you point to that have influenced that percentage?

          Just a little math problem for you.

          1. I like the way you think

            Max and current federal tax receipts as a percentage of gdp: 20.9 and 16.2%, respectively

            US GDP in 2018= 19.3 trillion

            (20.9-16.2%)* 19.3 trillion= 898 billion/yr or roughly 9 trillion/10 years or slightly more than 3 times what Elizabeth Warren is planning to spend. All by playing with noise in Hauser’s Law.

        2. programs taken for granted in other European countries

          And if you think these programs are “taken for granted” in European countries, you’ve never discussed the NHS with an English person.

        3. So why doesn’t Europe do it that way? Denmark’s top tax rate is 60% and starts at 1.2 times national income, equivalent to about 60K for a household in the US. They also have a 25% VAT. Their government spends 54% of GDP, while ours spends 38%.

          Liz’s plans, like most others being offered by the Democrats, would put us way above that 54% threshold, but the left wants us to believe that we can do so without adopting the kind of crushing-to-the-middle-class European tax system that none of the European socialist states have been able to avoid.

          1. And that tax system still isn’t economically sound. Denmark is gradually raising the age for receiving full retirement benefits to 73.

        4. I have a RIGHT to have the government force other people to pay for my basic needs! (And some wants).

          You ugly.

      3. Let’s say part of my evil fortune is the Mona Lisa. What’s your assessment of what it’s worth for taxation purposes?

        My assessment is that it is worth EXACTLY what you say it is worth to the entire world if it is stolen from you tomorrow. If you don’t want to declare that – to the world or your insurance company or whoever to get payment for that theft – well that’s ok. But in that case, govt will accept no evidence in a govt court that it or anything of value was stolen either. Not for prosecuting someone else for theft – or adjudicating some claim in a court that an insurance company is reneging on its insurance coverage.

    2. When did we decide to go after people making ~$430k/year or more? That’s just a somewhat successful normal person trying to live his life. Does he really deserve to lose 10% of his income?

      1. 10% more of his income.

        1. I meant to say 10% of his income “past that”. I thought it was understood.

      2. Boy there sure are a lot of value judgements being made here. I’m just doing math, sir.

        1. Value judgements are somewhat important.

    3. Total AGI for the top 1% for 2016 (2 years ago in taxing year) was almost exactly $2TT. Now maybe you think that has already increased by the 30% you need to make your numbers work, but that would mean that Trump’s economy has been wildly successful because medianhousehold incomes have increased at a faster rate than the top 1%. Or maybe your math simply sucks along with your politics.

      1. That’s AGI, right? Not how much the top 1% pays for Social Security, right?

        1. Social security caps out kinda low doesn’t it?

          1. Yes, but i’m Afraid that if we made a change in the tax code that affected 3% of the population we’d probably turn into Venezuela or something.

              1. 3% is the percentage of people that would be affected by raising the cap on Social Security taxes. That’s not a lot, hunh.

                1. who cares? We’re not doing value judgements.

                2. “That’s not a lot, hunh.”

                  Happy to spend other people’s money, scumbag?

            1. Given you’re a fucking socialist ignoramus, hardly anyone here cares what you assume passes for thought.

  20. Fake Indian uses fake money to push agenda helped along by fake news.

  21. From experience I know that many of the commenters here would be fine with putting abortion providers in jail to prevent legal access to abortion. But the minute someone proposes to collect a dimes worth of taxes on the 1% out comes the fucking pearl clutching about government force. Go fuck yourselves, hypocrites.

    1. You always do this troll thing backwards.

    2. Yes, I really don’t understand why we shouldn’t extort money from someone and threaten them with confiscation and imprisonment when, at the same time, we want to prevent someone from killing someone else. It’s inexplicable.

      1. I have zero problem with a women choosing when and where to have a kid. Fuck off, slaver.

        1. Freedom begins and ends in the uterus, to be sure.

  22. Wasn’t she using this money to pay for Medicare for All, paying off everyone’s student loans, and making college free for everyone, too? That’s some magic pile of money!

    1. Multiplier effect.

    1. Yeh. Not clicking.

  23. Shouldn’t the first trillion or so go toward balancing the budget, and not new programs anyway?

    And where will the trillions for the Green Raw Deal and VA Care for All come from?

    Even if these Warren/Sanders cash grabs work as intended, they will raise only about 4 trillion over a decade, not enough to fund the government for a year (more like half a year with their spending plans.) So whose cash will they grab next?

    An inheritance tax? There won’t be any wealth left to inherit once the confiscation tax runs its course.

    1. Don’t you know, they’re going to just take every dime we spend on health insurance and use that to fund MFA.

      But that totally wont be a tax on lower and middle class families.

  24. “Elizabeth Warren has finally finished spending all the fake money she intends to raise from her wealth tax, so she is focusing on more realistic solutions including her own line of Ejuice. Tonto’s Wigwam Salt Ejuice will be available in early 2020 in flavors ranging from Peace Pipe Vapor to Smallpox Sarsaparilla. Warren states, ‘I know the flavors that my people prefer. We’re a close-knit bunch. The tribe that vapes together – stays together!’. We pressed Warren on her solutions for climate change and she began chanting a bunch of jibberish and banged a drum in our faces until we removed ourselves from the uncomfortable situation.”

  25. Now there’s no more rouge oppression
    For they’ve passed a noble law
    And the trees are all kept equal
    By hatchet, axe…….. and saw.

  26. Get her a Monopoly set; plenty of funny money there.


    1. Why am I not surprised you’re so fucking stupid you think her plans will only cost 3 trillion over ten years.

  28. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    …….. Read More

  29. nice topics. It is relay great writing.

  30. OK Elizabeth…you say the math checks out and all of the money is there. Are you willing to put up a personal guarantee that it will all work out as you have out lined?

    Not all of the money…that’s impossible since we are talking about orders of magnitude more than anyone (including the government) has. So let’s just put a large % of your personal income on the line that all of this works out?

  31. I saw news earlier this morning that Joe Biden’s ranking in one of the major polls improved. Maybe more people are beginning to get the feeling that Warren’s list of expensive “plans” are not realistic.

    1. We get a choice between two socialists and a senile crook. If Hillary joins the race, we also get a corrupt psychopathic mass murderer. This is the best Democrats can do?

      Thanks, but at this point, I think I still prefer the philandering, potty-mouthed real estate developer with the bad hair and the string of bankruptcies.

  32. > The plan follows a $1.25 trillion plan to make public college tuition free and cancel a substantial amount of student debt, as well as a $700 billion plan to fund child care.

    Why don’t we call it what it is: taxpayer-funded college, taxpayer-funded child care, taxpayer-bailout for student debt. I’m tired of hearing “free college” and the like. Do you know anyone in the education system (or any system) that works for free?

  33. Well Heck! If Warren is going to take all my profit – I’ll just stop going to work… What’s the point…. Really!!!! What’s the freak-en point.

    You want me to be brilliant, make resources that last and benefit society all the while insisting it should be free! Screw them all; I quite.

  34. Want to tax wealth while minimizing tax avoidance? Tax transactions on the bond market. Throw in the stock market and the commodities markets for good measure. Then let the wealthy flee the country, and take their real estate with them.

  35. Her proposed wealth taxes wouldn’t even make a dent in the looming shortfall coming for the SS and Medicare much less pay for all the new “free” stuff.

  36. The entire world of socialism has been running on fumes for the last 90 years. It’s about to come crashing down to reality in the next 2 decades. You could argue that most Marxists are insane, as was Marx himself. His ideas have never worked, even at gunpoint, which then became Communism. Liz the Diz is living on another planet, as are most liberals, Marxists and leftists.

  37. ahahah 😀
    actually that was expected
    she definitely needs to save some cash, for instance, she can do it downloading a business card at https://businesscardsmaker.com/
    probably it would best her decision in the last years 😀

  38. No you know why liberals destroyed math education in public schools. You can’t sell this crap to anyone that can do math.

  39. Shouldn’t the first trillion or so go toward balancing the budget, and not new programs anyway?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.