Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Still Wants a Wealth Tax. It Still Won't Work.

The Massachusetts senator is the latest Democrat to use the pandemic to justify a policy she already wanted.

|

One way to think about Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D–Mass.) renewed push for a wealth tax is as an opportunistic attempt to ride the pandemic policy wave: Democrats have packed hundreds of billions of dollars worth of non-pandemic policy into their pandemic relief bill, and Warren has decided that the coronavirus presents the perfect opportunity to push a signature policy that she favored long before COVID-19 was on anyone's radar.  

Warren is spending this week talking up her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act." It's essentially a refreshed version of the same idea she proposed during her failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. The current measure, like the old one, would tax the net worth of American households with more than $50 million in assets to the tune of 2 percent annually, with an additional 1 percent tax for households worth more than $1 billion. Warren favored the wealth tax in 2019 when the economy was generally doing pretty well. But now, she says, it's needed "because of the changes in this country under the pandemic."

Another way to understand her latest push is as an effort to pressure the Biden administration to move further to the left on economic policy, in part because such efforts have been relatively successful. 

Warren's insistence on a wealth tax was one of the ideas that set her apart from Joe Biden during the Democratic primaries. He wasn't against increasing taxes on the wealthy, but he never backed taxing the wealthy that particular way. The wealth tax—a version of which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) also supported—was a radical idea. Biden was running as the Democratic primary field's moderate. 

Yet as the Democratic party's nominee, and then as president, Biden has moved toward the left, especially on economic policy. He's a centrist only in the sense that he's found the middle of the Democratic party, trying to split the difference between its more moderate factions and progressive agitators like Warren. Biden's steady movement suggests that the pressure from the left is having an impact. 

When asked recently about Warren's wealth tax proposal, Biden administration press secretary Jen Psaki walked a careful line: Biden "strongly believes that the ultra-wealthy and corporations need to finally start paying their fair share," she said, according to CNN. "He's laid out a lot of ideas and when we get to that point in our agenda, he'll look forward to working with [Warren] and others in Congress." Biden isn't committing to the idea. But he's not quite firmly ruling it out either. 

Still, Warren's wealth tax is unlikely to end up on the Biden administration's agenda, at least in its current form: In a recent interview with The New York Times, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who has emerged as one of the key defenders of Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, cautioned that Warren's plan is "something that has very difficult implementation problems." Yet the Times reports Warren also indicated that she "was prepared to look at ending tax treatment that could have a similarly profound effect." The progressives Warren represents might not get exactly what they want out of the Biden administration, but their pressure is having a clear impact. 

But that's not all that's going on here. Warren's advocacy for the wealth tax is also born out of a desire for easy political targets who can shoulder the blame for whatever problems or pseudo-problems Warren wants to bring up. What Warren needs are villains

Warren, like Psaki, has repeatedly invoked the idea that a wealth tax would help ensure that the rich pay their "fair share"—nevermind that the rich fund a disproportionate share of tax revenues, with the top 1 percent of earners paying about 38.5 percent of all income taxes. She complains that the system is "rigged," that the rich are getting away with, well, something. Warren is so determined to set up the wealthy as the bad guys that she's gone back to pushing a tax proposal that even Biden's Treasury Secretary is skeptical of.

Yellen is right, by the way, that Warren's plan would have "implementation problems." That's a polite way of saying it wouldn't work. The wealthy tend to have difficult-to-value assets, and forcing the IRS to value them every year in order to assess the tax would, in the words of one tax expert, be an "administrative nightmare." 

The plan would, however, result in a huge uptick in tax-related hassle for ordinary, not-super-rich people: Beyond the annual tax on wealth, her plan would also pump an additional $100 billion into the Internal Revenue Service to beef up enforcement, and mandate 30 percent annual audit rate for the agency—meaning that nearly a third of American households would be audited every year. 

What it probably wouldn't do is raise the sort of tax revenue that Warren claims.

The most obvious change to the plan she just introduced, compared to the original 2019 proposal, is in the revenue estimates: Relying on estimates from University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, Warren previously projected that the tax would hit about 75,000 Americans and raise about $2.75 trillion over a decade. Primarily as a result of increased household wealth, Warren now claims the tax would hit about 100,000 households and raise $3 trillion that could be spent on a slew of Democratic policy priorities

That's unlikely. As Harvard's Larry Summers and the University of Pennsylvania's Natasha Sarin have argued, the estimates Warren relies on almost certainly dramatically overestimate the revenue such a tax would raise. Those estimates, Summers has written, are "substantially exaggerated—likely by around a factor of two" for any realistic implementation of the tax. Summers allows that there is room for disagreement about the methodology for estimating the effects of the wealth tax, but then notes that in the case of the estimates Warren relies on, "every choice Saez and Zucman make goes in the direction of their ideological preconceptions." 

This isn't a serious policy proposal, and, in some ways, it's not meant to be. It doesn't matter to Warren that, in addition to everything else, it might well be unconstitutional. It's an attempt by Warren to stay on-brand. 

So she is returning to her old ideological crusade for reasons that are partly opportunistic, partly cynical, and partly strategic. This isn't really about the particulars of the legislation. It's a crisis-adjacent rallying cry for Warren and for Warren-ism, an attempt to use the pandemic to push the Biden administration further to the left and keep Warren visible in the process. The worrying thing, given Biden's trajectory so far, is that even if we don't end up with a full-fledged wealth tax, Warren, or at least Warrenism, might still win. 

NEXT: Dr. Seuss Is Canceled

Elizabeth Warren Progressive Taxation Taxes Coronavirus Government Spending

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.

Please to post comments

298 responses to “Elizabeth Warren Still Wants a Wealth Tax. It Still Won't Work.

  1. At least no mean tweets.

    1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. dgf Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
      COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

    2. If the rich want Biden, let them have Biden. I hope this tax passes & I hope it’s much, much higher.

      I’d like to see top tax rates above 90% like Ike because these rich people who love Biden should start paying for the government they impose on the rest of us.

      If you want libertarian policies, you want rich people to pay for the government they love. As it is, they use inflation to make us pay for it.

      1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience-ESp Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder. Say Goodbye To Your Old Job!

        Limited Number Of Spots Open…..>>> GOOGLE CASH 1

      2. It’s naïve to think this will be anything other than a new AMT where it isn’t indexed to inflation and starts hitting more and more people.

      3. Amen, brother

  2. What about a fake Indian tax?

    1. The Pocahontax?

      1. Nice

        1. You will be very happy to know that in the recent report of the NYT Newspaper, A man has earned $11000 in a month by doing simple works Online.CMs I read this report and started following him. Now I am making $10000 in a month.
          If you want to read this NYT Newspaper Report…….. JOBS APP

      2. No, a fake Indian tax would be the Fauxahontax.

        1. circle gets the square ^^

        2. The govt will Sioux any that refuse to pay.

      3. Clap…clap…clap…

  3. Elizabeth Warren came in third in her own state because her own people can’t even stand her.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Massachusetts_Democratic_presidential_primary

    1. P.S. This does not auger well for her chances of reelection. She’ll be defeated in the primaries by . . . anybody.

      1. Yeah, that’d be nice…..

        And who do we wind up with then? Maura Healy?

        The way to defeat Warren is for the opinion makers on the right to stop meanmouthing every republican candidate because “they’re not conservative enough”. Massachusetts is not going to elect a Mike Lee. Period. It would be nice if far right could get it through their heads that it’s far better to have a Scott Brown, or Susan Collins, than a Warren or Kennedy, so suck it up and vote accordingly.

        1. Nothing really changes until we get rid of the progs. Between the Marxist media that are 100% democrat propagandists and fixed elections, nothing will change.

          It’s rapidly boiling down to a binary decision. Go along and suck it up, or do what it takes to dispose of our excess progressives.

          1. Shut the fuck up you America hating fascist!

            Get out of MY COUNTRY you anti American traitor!

            1. Or what faggot?

              1. What are you gonna do?

                Nothing you goddamn fascist piece of trash!

                If you hate America why are you here traitor?

                Traitor!

                1. We love America. We’re not filthy marxists, like you.

                  1. Not a marxist.

                    You hate America. You want to overthrow our democraticly elected government and make Trump el duce.

                    You’re a fascist. My grandfather kicked your ass in WW2 and we’ll beat you again.

                    1. You can’t even stop me from calling you a faggot, faggot.

                    2. You can’t stop me from calling you an America hating fascist. Because that’s what you are.

                      Use homophobic ad hominem attacks all you want. That doesn’t change the fact you’re an anti-American fascist.

                2. “Nothing”

                  That’s what I thought.

                  1. Youre god doesn’t exist pervert

            2. No, this is MY country. No prog is a real American. Leave while you can.

              1. Fascists aren’t real Americans.
                Trump’s dick is so far down your throat the lack of oxygen has made you think you’re a real American.

                You’re not. You’re an American hating fascist.

                1. And you can’t do a fucking thing about it faggot.

                  1. Don’t get your magic underwear in a bunch.

                    Call me faggot all you want. Your beliefs are a laughing stock. Stop forcing them on people.

                    Save our freedom. Slaughter every goddamn Mormon on earth!

          2. I moved to Spain – they can’t comprehend where America is going now.

        2. Mike Lee is an insane Mormon piece of trash. Massachusetts elected not as insane Romney.

          Fuck Mormons. Fuck Mike Lee.

          1. Gonna send the Osmonds to give you the beat down you deserve.

            1. Haha! Goddamn you’re stupid if you think the Osmands are intimidating.

              You’re 16 right? Go play with your toy guns lil fascist. Tell your cunt mom she fucked up and raised an anti American piece of shit fascist.

              Run along lil boy.

        3. They tend to be a little myopic. What matters is revenge at any cost, not actual results.

        4. ” Massachusetts is not going to elect a Mike Lee. Period. It would be nice if far right could get it through their heads that it’s far better to have a Scott Brown, or Susan Collins, than a Warren or Kennedy, so suck it up and vote accordingly.”

          I think you are confused. The right happily welcomed Scott Brown when he was elected in MA. That he later lost the seat has nothing to do with the Right. It has to do with the fact that the people of MA increasingly want the types of people like Warren who are in no way whatsoever conservative.

          If you recall, Senator Romney cut his teeth as the Governor of MA. And instead of bemoaning him as “not conservative enough” the GOP served him up as possibly the worst person to run against Obama in ’08. So, in fact, the right seems to have no problem cavorting with and even rallying behind squishy cons. Hell- from Bush (Compassionate Conservative) to McCain, to Romney, and even to Trump himself- the Right’s modus operandi seems to have been to offer up people talking a good social conservative game, while endlessly selling out on any financially conservative issue at bat.

          In short, I think your analysis is a bit off.

          1. The Republican Establishment has no such issues in putting those candidates up. I know that some Democrats in open-primary states ran to the other side to vote for the suckiest R on the ticket, e.g., Romney, given Obama’s basically primary-free ride in the 2nd term.

            The unwashed masses of Republicans voted for Trump, though, mostly as an anti-establishment vote, both against the RINOs and the swamp.

          2. Actually, you make my point for me. Yes, in this Insane Asylum called Massachusetts, the progies generally run everything. The only way Brown got elected to the Senate the first time was not by getting a few moderates in the middle, and certainly not by getting any of the leftists to vote for him, but by getting the far right excited enough to vote. Once they saw that he was not as conservative as they hoped, they didn’t even show up to vote, so Warren won by default when Brown came up again.

    2. And yet she won reelection by a wide margin in 2018, and will likely continue to do so.

      We need to take our country back “educated” imbeciles like Warren; they sure as hell aren’t going to give it back.

      1. She won in the general election because she won the Democrat primary. She won’t win the Democrat primary next time. She won’t even stand in the general election.

        She’s in a safe Democrat seat, and every prominent Democrat with ties to Massachusetts is licking their lips at taking her seat in the primaries.

        Almost 80% of the voting Democrats in her state voted for anyone else but her in the presidential primary, so a majority of Democrats are also likely to vote for someone else in the next senate primary.

        She’s toast.

        1. The voters in her own party can’t even stand her!

          LOL

        2. I appreciate your perspective on her, as I am not familiar with trends and attitudes in MA. I am just baffled how so many politicians, like “there oughta be a law” Blumenthal, “sleeps with Chines spy” Swalwell, the “Squad,” and a host of others coming back to torment the rest of us with their nonsensical policies.

          1. Because the alternative said “there ought to be a wall” and was probably a Russian blackmail target and global-scale criminal.

            1. Remember back when Elizabeth Warren was going to be president? Those were the days.

              1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. sdio Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
                COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

            2. From a TDS-addled lefty shit, incapable of separating his fantasies from reality.

    3. Ken, my view is — the wealthy will STILL fund her. No matter what. The uber rich are Team Blue.

      So, the GOP should stop opposing it. Let them suffer.

      1. “The uber rich are Team Blue.”

        Because they can afford to be. They’ve got theirs. Now they want to pull up the ladder.

    4. That could be that her own people cant even stand her or it could be “we need to keep her in congress”.

  4. How about a 125% tax on politicians income other than the statutory salary? For the entire household?

    1. Hows about just a 95% tax on anybody who votes to raise taxes?

  5. People vote for her. How?

    1. Ummm. Massholes are gonna masshole. Same state gave us Ted Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and Mitt Romney.

      1. And Bill Weld.

        1. Indeed. Weld’s anti-gun stances and Johnson’s “I agree with 73% of what Bernie says” made me not vote Libertarian for the first time in 30+ years.

    2. She offers substantive solutions to practical power differentials in society.

      But many people would prefer to talk about the truly important things like the war on Mr. Potato Head.

      1. Do you understand the meaning of the words “substantive,” “power,” “differentials,” or “society”? If not, you have no business stringing them together into an incoherent sentence.

        1. Not really, but I do know that half the political argument in this country literally cares more about the gender of a children’s toy than climate change.

          And I’m supposed to believe there are serious debates to be had

          1. “Not really …”

            I figured that to be the case.

          2. People care deeply about children. What can I say?

          3. “And I’m supposed to believe there are serious debates to be had”

            TDS-addled lefty shits like you would not be invited.

          4. some is not “more”

          5. It’s shrill faggots like you that make Mr. Potatohead an issue in the first place. Being ‘woke’ is part of your disease.

      2. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

        Neal Stephenson

        1. And they almost always degenerate into threat-shitters just flinging poo around.

      3. Politicians offer no solutions, unless your problem is “I want someone to steal my autonomy, assets and dignity” you bootlicking fucktard. Then again, if you don’t really have any of those things, I can see how someone claiming they can make your life better with magical incantations might be appealing to such a smooth brain.

      4. “substantive solutions”

        She stated that a “trans child” of about 10 years old would make the selection for her Education secretary. You have to admit, that was not practical.

      5. “She offers substantive solutions to practical power differentials in society.”

        I think you’re confusing “plans” with “solutions”.

        Central planning has a fairly atrocious record, being more likely to destroy wealth on a massive scale than to increase the common good. Free markets have a very impressive record, increasing living standards and wealth, albeit very unevenly.

    3. People don’t vote for her. This is Massachusetts – the Party votes for you.

    4. >>People vote for her. How?

      they vote for the other guy & the machine takes care of the rest.

      1. I get it. My sorry attempt at a “Tonto joke” was not received well. I loved living in Mass when I was in my 20s. I was completely uninterested in politics, life was grand!

        1. my brother lives on Nantucket & loves every second of it

        2. I was completely uninterested in politics, life was grand!

          Life has improved since I stopped voting. I could guess the outcome of an election with about 80% accuracy by taking the inverse of my ballot, which is very frustrating and disappointing. Now that I no longer bother all that stress is gone.

          1. At least you got your pick in Biden!

  6. Treating the rich as villains is a noble tradition. It’s you guys treating the poor as villains that’s fucked up.

    What is your evidence-based argument here? “My money I want mine mine!” ?

    “All taxes are literally slavery!” ?

    Something has to redistribute wealth around here. You don’t spend 40 years redistributing it upward without expecting some kind of reversal at some point. Of course I’m sure you are aware of this and are simply concerned over the efficacy of the policy means.

    1. You don’t spend 40 years redistributing it upward without expecting some kind of reversal at some point.

      Riiiight. Because not taking is giving and not giving is taking. When the rich aren’t punitively taxed for the purpose of punishing them for being rich, and that money is not given to people who didn’t earn it, that’s the exact same thing as taking money from people who don’t have any money and distributing it upwards. Or something.

      1. The problem with conservatism is that it is positively obsessed with moral condemnation. Nobody’s talking about punishing anyone, just paying for civilization in the fairest way possible.

        If you’re against taxation on principle, you’re an anarchist. If you’re not an anarchist, then you should come to the table with your idea of what’s the most fair and useful distributive scheme.

        1. “[J[ust paying for civilization in the fairest way possible.”

          I don’t want to be in a “civilization” with retarded communists like you. That’s what you don’t understand. We are not in “this” together. There is no “us.” There is you, with your hand in other people’s pockets, because you are useless.

          1. Oh, then kindly remove your trespassing ass from my country. I pay the user fee to be here because I like having roads and schools, but you are welcome to move to a quiet corner of Antarctica if community isn’t your thing.

            By my calculations, the only one who is endorsing stealing here is you.

            Granted, if you manage to conquer a portion of the land currently administered by the United States, fair play rules say you get to make it your own, until you are subsequently re-invaded by a stronger power of course.

            1. By my calculations, the only one who is endorsing stealing here is you.

              Only if you believe that everything is owned by the collective. To each according to… you know that one by heart. Along with “Might makes right” it’s your political motto, eh?

              1. Ownership is an absurd concept when you get down to it, but I’m not making an “ought” argument, I’m making an “is” one. Land is governed by the entity that governs it. Sovereignty is as absurd as ownership, but it all comes down to who can shoot whom in the end.

                What’s less absurd is the idea that you should pay for the services you procure from other people. It’s simple practicality that we don’t tear down society and rebuild it every time an individual has a thought about the matter. It’s no more complicated than paying for a meal at a restaurant, really, except it’s a little more trouble to choose among alternatives.

                1. “Ownership is an absurd concept when you get down to it ….”

                  Says the communist fuck who thinks he is entitled to other people’s shit by way of divine mandate.

                  1. Nobody’s entitled to anything but what men with guns will enforce on their behalf. I prefer the men with guns to have uniforms so I know who’s asking. You prefer them to have pinky rings and innuendo about kneecaps.

                    I realize you want a world that is as life-sustaining yet free of charge as your mother’s womb was, but I’ve been told lately that this is a place adults talk.

                    1. “I prefer the men with guns to have uniforms ….”

                      Of course you do. You are a pathetic communist asshole.

                    2. Men with guns can force you to say that you’re a chocolate bunny. That doesn’t make you a chocolate bunny.

                    3. You’re not getting that the alternative to men with guns and uniforms is men with guns without uniforms, and then how do you know who’s taxing you and who’s shaking you down?

                    4. Why does your equation for society always include men with guns dictating how other people live their lives?

                      That’s rhetorical. It’s because you are an authoritarian, communist twat.

                    5. Is that not a uniform?

                    6. “How do you know who’s taxing you and who’s shaking you down?”

                      That’s my point precisely: if the only difference is the costumes they wear, there’s no difference.

                2. Ownership is an absurd concept when you get down to it

                  Really? So you don’t mind if I help myself to your property, being that ownership is absurd.

                  Ohhhhhh! You mean “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine too! Because might makes right!”

                  1. Really? So you don’t mind if I help myself to your property, being that ownership is absurd.

                    Ever notice how these “property is theft!” types tend to be bourgeoisie liberals who wouldn’t dream of giving up their own stable lifestyle in the interest of the collective they’re always going on about?

                    1. Yes I have.

                3. What’s less absurd is the idea that you should pay for the services you procure from other people. It’s simple practicality that we don’t tear down society and rebuild it every time an individual has a thought about the matter. It’s no more complicated than paying for a meal at a restaurant, really, except it’s a little more trouble to choose among alternatives
                  Except that is never what people like you want. Why not propose a tax structure that e.g. taxes people for how much they use roads or other government services (things people actually pay taxes for). Instead, idiots like Warren propose theft. In the real world, billionaires don’t just have x% of their wealth in liquid form that they can just hand over to the bureaucrats. Indirectly, what she is proposing is a partial government take over of industry. She is a clueless idiot with stupid ideas. Anybody that thinks what she is proposing is fair or has any chance in hell of working is also a useless idiot.

                  1. “She is a clueless idiot with stupid ideas. Anybody that thinks what she is proposing is fair or has any chance in hell of working is also a useless idiot.”

                    Tony in a nutshell.

                  2. It’s impossible to quantify all of the benefits of civilization. Taxes are the traditional way to pay for all the specific goods and services provided as well as the penumbra of happiness provided by the safety, raised education standards, environmental protection, and such that civilization offers.

                    Are we discussing public policy or are we indulging your delusional fantasy about how you could prosper like a king with just a slingshot and the freedom to hunt varmints with it?

                    1. “[T]he penumbra of happiness …”

                      The Warren court wants its bullshit back.

                      “[P]rosper like a king with just a slingshot”

                      Of course not. We know Kings prosper by hiring men with guns in uniforms. We should all want this …

                    2. It’s impossible to quantify all of the benefits of civilization.

                      Correct. People like you are the ones claiming the rich aren’t paying their fair share of something that you just admitted is “impossible to quantify”.

                      Taxes are the traditional way to pay for all the specific goods and services provided as well as the penumbra of happiness provided by the safety, raised education standards, environmental protection, and such that civilization offers.

                      Correct again. Why are you not arguing in favor or restructuring the tax code so that people and companies that use the most government services, pay a proportionally higher tax for those services? Why is theft from the rich more favorable to you and people that think like you?

                      Are we discussing public policy or are we indulging your delusional fantasy about how you could prosper like a king with just a slingshot and the freedom to hunt varmints with it?

                      It’s pretty obvious who is indulging their delusional fantasies and incapable of engaging in good faith debate. However, if I was in the woods with you and had a slingshot, you’d be the preferred varmint.

                    3. Says the guy whose concept of government never grew past a fifth grade social studies book.

                4. “but it all comes down to who can shoot whom in the end.”

                  Civilization is about recognizing this is not the best way to manage society and trying to get away from it.

                5. “…how do you know who’s taxing you and who’s shaking you down?”

                  The one taxing you does it every two weeks and takes far more.
                  The one shaking you down does so only intermittently and at his own risk.

                6. “What’s less absurd is the idea that you should pay for the services you procure from other people.”

                  So much for redistribution, then, unless you’re going to pay me for it.

            2. “Oh, then kindly remove your trespassing ass from my country.”

              No.

              You leave motherfucker.

            3. The top 1% pay 38% of taxes. Taxpayers *in the lower half* only pay 3% of taxes.

              Sounds like we’re already doing a shit-ton of redistribution.

            4. ” I like having roads and schools, ”

              Neither of which ever existed without government.

              You are the coal company running a company town and don’t even realize it.

            5. Except the user fee you pay is likely a few thousand dollars a year while I pay a few hundred thousand dollars a year. We are both individuals but I am paying many fold more than you for the privilege of living here.

              And with this as the status quo, you taking and me giving substantially more, your answer is that I am not giving enough, so you can have the govt ineptly spend even more of my money, so you can personally get more of a benefit.

              So fuck off with your user fee. If you worked the rest of your life, you would probably pay what I pay in 1 year in taxes. Who is doing more good for society? Now gtf out my pockets. You want more money for society, go make it and fork it over to the govt yourself.

            6. This isn’t your country prog, it’s ours. You’re just a filthy communist tumor destroying everything around you. You are incapable of patriotism or decency.

              Progs have no souls.

            7. Tony, this isn’t ‘your’ country. I a progressive. So not a real American, or even a real human.

              Best you leave, or even better, go drink your Drano.

        2. You can have fairness or you can have justice. You can’t have both. Fairness requires injustice, and justice is unfair.

          1. Try to do better than some self-serving Ayn Randian slogan. Things aren’t true because they sound clever and counterintuitive.

            Fairness is actually a virtue. It’s etymologically connected to the concept of the good. You can hardly get more virtuous than that.

            That means it’s your burden to explain why some scenario is better off being unfair. In a market where meritocracy supposedly justifies things?

            1. “Things aren’t true because they sound clever and counterintuitive.”

              “Fairness is actually a virtue. It’s etymologically connected to the concept of the good. You can hardly get more virtuous than that.”

              For the first time, I agree with you.

              1. Yea I think you agree with the words. But remember that he sees vastly different things behind them than you do (is my guess). It’s really like talking to a different species.

                But really, I doubt that if tested, you and Tony would have a large intersection in your definitions of “fairness”.

            2. If I save my money and do well with my life while someone else pisses it all away, then it’s not fair that I have a decent life while they do not. It’s perfectly just though. Fixing this unfairness would require unjustly taking some of my wealth and giving it to the irresponsible schlub. That’s what you advocate. You choose fairness over justice. Can’t have both.

              1. Once again you’re bringing moral judgment into a place it doesn’t belong. You don’t get out of paying your bills because you declare you’re a superior person than someone else. We’re trying to run a civilization, not a Sunday school.

                1. You don’t get out of paying your bills by insisting other people should be forced to pay your bills at the point of a gun, commie twat.

                  1. If you’re an anarchist just say so. It’s quite possible to make that a logically consistent position. Just don’t tell me you want all the stuff taxes pay for except the IRS. That’s stealing.

                    1. If you’re a communist, just say so. It’s quite possible to make that a logically consistent position. Just don’t tell me you want the government to rule over every aspect of everyone’s life and take all their money in the name of fairness. That’s insane.

                    2. I’m not a communist. I’m not really into -isms. Labels are imprecise and needlessly divisive, being that we are evolved to be such unfortunately tribal creatures, and especially considering that no utopian economic top-down model has ever been successfully implemented, and that goes for yours too.

                      I can only assume you believe that anyone who isn’t an anarchist (I.e., those who believe in having taxes) is a communist, in which case you are not demonstrating the remotest facility with the labels you seem to feel are so important.

                    3. “I’m not a communist.”

                      Yes, you are.

                2. No, we’re not running a civilization. That’s human action, but not human design. Nobody designs or runs a civilization. That’s just what happens when people independently operate under a set of rules. And if those rules don’t include property rights, you’ll have an equally poor civilization instead of the unequally rich one we have today.

                  1. Of course people design them. What do you think the constitutional convention was?

                    We evolved in nature, where there is no such thing as property. Property is an invention of human minds and is thus a cultural entity.

                    Thus, we can make it anything we want it to be. Intellectual property is a particularly abstract concept nevertheless fundamental to capitalism and requiring complicated systems of enforcement.

                    Defend your policy regime on the merits of its outcomes. Don’t just tell me it’s required because you say so.

                    1. Laws are an invention of human minds. Taxes are an invention of human minds. Fairness is an invention of human minds. Everything is the product of the human mind, ipso facto, everything is pretend.

                      You are a completely irredeemable fucking retard.

                    2. We evolved in nature, where there is no such thing as property.

                      Uh, you do realize that, in nature, only the strongest survive?

                      “Property” doesn’t exist in nature because nature routinely destroys the weakest for the benefit of the strongest.

                      I realize you have this stupid fantasy of bring the Fully Automated Gay Space Luxury Communist utopia to life, but you’re never going to get that because your philosophy of secular apocalyptism is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

                    3. That’s all true Geiger, all we ever talk about is culture. Even the idea that we shouldn’t commit suicide as a species by burning fossil fuels unchecked is, deep down, a mere assertion of a cultural value.

                      May the best values win.

                    4. I don’t have too much of a problem with property, but if you’re trying to tell me there’s only one correct way to do it (whatever benefits you most, naturally), then I’m gonna suspect you’re trying to sell me something.

                      And what you’re selling is the idea that the men with guns whose salaries I help pay should only care about your interests.

                    5. “May the best values win.”

                      Enjoy losing, moron.

                    6. “And what you’re selling is the idea that the men with guns whose salaries I help pay should only care about your interests.”

                      Nope.

                      That’s the idea YOU’RE selling. But ideas are just inventions of the human mind with no significance.

                    7. Of course people design them. What do you think the constitutional convention was?

                      That was designing a federal government, as in the people who enforce things like…. property rights… which allows civilizations to flourish.

                      But that wasn’t people designing society or civilization. They were designing a government.

                    8. “What do you think the constitutional convention was?”

                      Rules for GOVERNMENT.

                      Which for some reason you stupidly think is synonymous with civilization.

                    9. Tulpa made a comment that wasn’t a personal attack on someone! Amazing!

                      Flagged it anyway.

                    10. And nobody but you cares.

                    11. Tony, the point is that 1% of people already pay 38.5% of income taxes. How can you say that they aren’t paying their fair share?

                3. “Once again you’re bringing moral judgment into a place it doesn’t belong…”

                  Just because you’re totally bereft of principles doesn’t mean everyone else should be.
                  Fuck off and die. Slowly and painfully.

                  1. Tony points guns at people and takes their shit, but morals don’t belong in the convo lolol

                    Not self serving at all of him is it!

                    “STOP CALLONG ME EVIL FOR THREATENING YOU” – Tony, being evil

              2. Sorry. The grasshopper and the ants fable has been cancelled. As it turns out, those hard working ants harbored racist views against the playful grasshopper.
                GLM Grasshoppers Lives Matter
                Just because that grasshoppers wouldn’t gather food and build his own shelter, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t deserve the food and shelter that those ants worked for. This is 2021! “Equality”, says Joe.

              3. This is hilarious mostly because you were so upset at the guy who gave you a tax cut while remaining quiet for the guy promising to take more from you. This is why you’re a joke. At least Tony admits who he is. You don’t.

                1. Again responding not to what I said, but to what I didn’t say.

            3. Virtue sounds like one of those cultural things that no one is burdened with, because it comes from minds. QED.

        3. You have a really twisted definition of “the fairest way possible”.

          1. You could do worse than me. Like someone who believes that Charles Koch deserves all of the benefits of generations of lives and trillions of dollars spent on building America for free.

            1. “You could do worse than me.”

              No, we can’t.

              1. Tips top hat in approval.

            2. The top 1% pay 38% of taxes. Taxpayers *in the lower half* only pay 3% of taxes.

              Sounds like he’s paid for a lot of those benefits.

              1. Yeah, but the top 1% is still rich. How can they have paid their fair share and still be rich?

            3. Funny how some who complain about redistribution of wealth never complain about the INITIAL redistribution – from workers/customers – that made the well off wealthy in the first place.

              1. That’s why this concept of “giving back” really bothers me. The implication is that something was taken. As if this business that provides goods, services and jobs to people has taken something from them and now owes them. Fuck that. The rich should be appreciated. Show me a rich person and odds are I will show you someone who has contributed greatly to society.

                1. You will also find many rich or growing richer from their government connections that you seemingly ignored during last year’s election.

                  1. One of these days you’ll respond to something I actually said.

                    1. Haaaa ha ha ha ha ha! That was a joke. If you didn’t lie about people you’d have nothing to say.

              2. What are you talking about? Those are voluntary transactions. The customer gets a product or service, and the workers get paid a negotiable wage.

        4. The top 1% pay 38% of taxes. Taxpayers *in the lower half* only pay 3% of taxes.

          Sounds like we’re already ‘paying for civilization in the fairest way possible’.

        5. “just paying for civilization in the fairest way possible”

          I never felt like my taxes were paying for “civilization” when I lived in South Chicago. I felt that they were being squandered on anything but “civilization” if you consider that the education system is the worst in the country and the murder rate is terrifying.
          When I moved to a small town, my taxes are less than one fourth and people are infinitely more civilized. I’m baffled.

    2. Exactly. All those federal student loans that helped fund Harvard so they could funnel money to an unqualified fake Indian law professor to increase her wealth. The workers of the country got screwed on that.

      1. Stupid people talk about people. Smart people talk about ideas.

        1. Stupid people also talk about ideas they don’t understand ….

          1. So that’s why you’re always talking about me.

        2. *pats Tony on the head* The kiddie table has tater tots. Your favorite. Have a seat. The adults are talking.

          1. The adults are the ones who, in the year 2021, subscribe to a hilariously discredited economic cult dreamed up by kleptocrats?

            1. “Hilariously Discredited” should be the name of your next sock puppet account.

            2. No, the kleptocrats have been pretty much discredited, except by TDS-addled lefty shits like you.

            3. Some other child stole your tater tots? Those Kleptotots!
              And when you later play in the corner by yourself, please refrain from eating the Playdough and crayons. Thanks. If Liz shows up, maybe she will join you in a game of cowboys and fake Indians.

            4. ahahaah people freely transacting is discredited ahahajaja

            5. That people ought to keep what they have earned? If we wanted to keep basic infrastructure a public good but eliminated the excesses of government, it wouldn’t just be the wealthy that paid less in taxes. As it is, the top 1% pay a hugely disproportionate amount. Even if the government confiscated all of the wealth of the top 1%, it wouldn’t pay for what the federal government already owes in future obligations. The top 1% own maybe $35 trillion dollars in assets. We have unfunded liabilities of over $120 trillion. There’s no way to make this work without taxing the middle class to death. Government services are rarely worth the cost.

        3. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

          Neal Stephenson

        4. Now, let’s talk about Donald Trump for 4 more years.

          1. Donald Trump is an idea, and that idea is fascism for dummies.

            Now let’s watch libertarians with maybe 3 exceptions worship his every utterance as if he were god-king.

            1. “Fascism for Smarties,” by Tony.

              1. It is basically a Where’s Waldo reset except instead of a nerdy guy in a striped shirt there is a bad orange man hidden on each page.

            2. You’re thinking of republicans, who are not libertarians, not even close. I’m beginning to think they’re right about the flag & refresh for you, you’re clearly not even arguing in good faith when you say shit like libertarians love trump. That or you’re a troll, or just retarded.

              1. why not both?

            3. I’m sorry, but Donald Trump is a real human being, and ideas are imaginary.

              If you can’t share in this concept we call reality, you can’t make sense to anyone.

              1. Tony can’t make sense anyway. He’s prog trash and a raving faggot.

        5. The top 1% pay 38% of taxes. Taxpayers *in the lower half* only pay 3% of taxes.

    3. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
      ― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

      AKA, flag, refresh

      1. “I’m here to read exactly everything I already believe, because that’s a legitimate use of time.”

        1. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

          Neal Stephenson

          1. Lots of time saving going on here.

            1. You posted 87 times. Stephenson was talking about you bruh.

            2. Tony, you’re a greedy incapable idiot. This is why you’re a prog. You can’t get ahead on merit and ability so you turn your greedy eyes to what others have. Thinking you and your treasonous friends will vote to take what others have earned in the name of ‘fairness’. Yet you give nothing of yourself. Except the loads you spray on local bathhouse walls and floors.

              You epitomize the evil of the politics of envy.

          2. Like I said…just flag, refresh. Unless you enjoy arguing with a child who has no constraint to be reasonable, consistent, logical, or even on topic.

    4. “What is your evidence-based argument here? “My money I want mine mine!” ?”

      Far better than “I’ll take yours at gun-point”, TDS-addled lefty shit.

    5. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

      Neal Stephenson

      1. I think we get the picture.

    6. Stop treating people differently just because they have more than you, bigot. I don’t consider poor people villains anymore than I think a rich person is a villain, but you on the other hand apparently harbor resentment towards people already paying the majority of taxes, simply because they have some specific threshold of wealth. I thought disliking specific groups that are different than you was supposed to be a conservative thing? Turns out team red and team blue are both worthless pieces of shit seeking power, and useful retards like you further their goals.

    7. The problem is that the left describe every failure to redistribute downward as “redistributing upwards”.

      I’d suggest reflecting on what that “re” actually means in “redistribute”; Every act of “re”distribution acts upon a prior distribution, and that prior distribution wasn’t necessarily a result of redistributing.

      If I brew mead, and you take some of it from me to give to somebody else, you’re redistributing. My original possession of it wasn’t “redistribution”, because nobody had taken it from another owner and given it to me. I originated it myself.

      Most of what you’re complaining about isn’t redistribution by any sensible definition, it’s that the people who originated wealth still having it!

    8. Something has to redistribute wealth around here.

      The top 1% pay 38% of taxes. Taxpayers *in the lower half* only pay 3% of taxes.

      Sounds like we’re already doing a shit-ton of redistribution.

    9. Your underlying premise–that wealth is “distributed”– is flawed. If your scheme is implemented you’re going to find that out.

      For my part, I don’t care. Do what you want. But here in the real world you’re going to discover that the “take” from this scheme will be much less than you expect, and FAR less than it will take to create your “civilization”. Then you’ll have to stop being a child about it and do the grown-up thing: make choices.

    10. Something has to redistribute wealth around here.

      Why, specifically, is that so? I want to zero in on this. Why does the wealth have to be redistributed? Is there some social benefit to giving Paul a wad of cash that outweighs the social ill of stealing it from Peter?

      1. Taxes are a function of a complex society. It doesn’t matter if it’s gold, fiat currency, or a chicken, at some point a group of people gets large enough that questions about how to manage it and keep it functioning are raised. I’m not saying that “taxes are the price we pay for civilization,” because that’s putting the cart before the horse. But as things like defense, infrastructure (ROADZ!), water and food production/distribution, etc. start coming into play, then questions emerge as to how to organize them, who should manage them, and what people should receive in compensation for providing those things.

        There’s a reason most North American tribes never advanced much past the hunter-gatherer stage of social development, and it wasn’t because of taxes, it was because they tended to be intensely democratic societies where the concepts of personal property and central management tended to be quite limited.

        1. You make it sound like the purpose of taxes is to spread around the hard work and good fortune of a few, but I’m pretty sure the way I learned it the purpose of taxes was to pay for communal expenses. So which is it? Is the purpose of taxes to pay for that road or to make sure that everyone gets roughly the same outcome regardless of their choices in life?

          1. You make it sound like the purpose of taxes is to spread around the hard work and good fortune of a few,

            That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that taxes are inevitable once a society advances to a certain stage of complexity. Eventually, communal needs end up coming to the forefront.

            No scaled human civilization has ever evolved into an anarcho-capitalist paradise; hell, even cave people shared the bounties of the hunt to varying degrees.

            1. I’m not saying taxes are inherently bad or that society doesn’t have stuff it needs to pay for. I’m specifically criticizing the use of taxes for the purpose of taking wealth from one person and giving it to another just to make them more equal. It’s not buying anything that society needs. It’s just socially mandated theft.

      2. Go to a wealthy area. Drive around and look at the mansions. Look in the driveways. What is the #1 vehicle, by a long shot, that is being driven around in wealthy neighborhoods.
        Porsche? Nope!
        BMW? Nope!
        Mercedes? No again!

        Chevy, Ford, and Dodge service vans. Those are the vehicles of the men and women that make tons of money building, maintaining, and improving those mansions. Money is distributed to people that earn it. Wealth is generated and distributed. Ask those guys in the service vans if they like the wealthy.

        1. I’ve never met a poor plumber, nor have I ever met a plumber who drove a luxury car.

          1. They’re paying $50,000 for an RV and $60,000 for a cool truck to tow it with.

            They have a different idea of luxury.

  7. Obviously the rich don’t pay their fair share. If they did then they wouldn’t be rich!

  8. What does the Church Lady have against wealth? Could it be…

    SATAN?!?

  9. Wealth taxes never work. Look at Texas, they rely on a 2% wealth tax, and they can’t keep the power on or water clean.

  10. She is just insufferable.

    For some reason when I see her I am reminded of Dana Carvy’s “Church Lady” sketches on SNL.

    1. America’s mother-in-law

  11. OK boomer.

    Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren identifies as a capitalist, which makes sense, given her estimated $12 million fortune.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/20/how-elizabeth-warren-built-a-12-million-fortune

    Politicians would ideally take a vow of poverty, and put a substantial portion of their wealth to paying down the debt. They foisted it on everyone; they should be the ones paying it. But they’ll go to the grave as fully-vested debtors.

    1. It’s not hypocritical for liberals to be rich. That’s insane. It would be like a conservative saying that grabbing all the wealth he can get his hands on makes him extra virtuous.

      Oh wait that has been the moral premise of libertarianism the whole time.

      1. But it is hypocritical – you are saying that the rich *owe* the rest of the country.

        So liberals who keep that money that they are supposed to be giving away are hypocritical.

        1. Leftists don’t give their money away to charity. Conservatives do. It was proven in a study conducted by a leftist.

          Look at Tony. Has he EVER discussed his own philanthropic efforts? No. His idea of generosity involved,EVs taking what others have earned.

      2. A standard “I read the atlantic” progressive while feeling superior and smug about how woke you are, and if only the plebs would listen to you, we’d have utopia. No, you don’t understand libertarianism, that’s apparent to all who read your smearings. You’re a useful idiot with a thin veneer of what you consider an education, yet you come here and cheer for authoritarianism and failures who year after year do nothing to make our lives better (because they literally cannot), but take more and more.

    2. Politicians would ideally take a vow of poverty

      Term limits is as close as it’s going to get.

  12. This isn’t a serious policy proposal, and … it’s not meant to be.

    Something something gambling going on in here.

  13. The mind boggles that any American would support a politician who’s plan is, in essence, pump tons of money into the least popular American institution.

    There must be widespread belief that the IRS won’t be coming after them, and in a way they’re right since it’s probable that ‘they’ don’t pay taxes in the United States.

    Always amusing watching people with no skin in the game go after the few people who do.

    1. Whereas Republicans have spent decades gutting the IRS so that it’s easier to cheat on taxes without getting caught.

  14. Warren’s wealth tax is particularly stupid because most of the “wealth” she wants to target isn’t even cold, hard cash. If she was just making a case to raise taxes on dividends, for example, she could at least make the case for taxing something tangible. Even a tax on stock microtransactions could be argued for, since real money at least needs to change hands in such a transaction.

    Her plan literally wants to establish a tax on the estimated value assets, whose worth is entirely on paper. If she was to tax Bezos on the value of his Amazon stock, which is where most of his real “wealth” is parked, and he had to sell off a bunch of stock to pay the tax, suddenly the value of stock would plummet and so would the taxable value.

    Warren’s a harridan, but she’s not a stupid woman, so there’s no logical reason for her to propose something this dumb unless her real goal is simply to nuke the foundations of the American economy. The bitch needs to watch that scene from “Wolf of Wall Street” where Mark Hanna tells Jordan Belfort how to keep the stock machine churning without ever actually paying anything out on the back end, while collecting cold, hard cash on the front end to put in their own pockets.

    1. but she’s not a stupid woman,

      You would be surprised at how many otherwise intelligent people are utter morons outside of a very, very, very, narrow specialty.

      Especially when being a moron is necessary – its her stances that got her the power and prestige that come with her position. If she had been reasonable from the start she’d have gone nowhere in politics – you don’t get elected by telling people there’s no free lunch.

      Now that she’s built a career and reputation on this idiocy, she *has* to keep it up.

      Its like cops who oppose the drug war – how many of them enforced it for decades and then only came around once they retired and their paychecks didn’t depend on it anymore?

      1. Now that she’s built a career and reputation on this idiocy, she *has* to keep it up.

        That’s what sarcasmic and I are saying, though–she knows damn well that the “wealth” of the rich is mostly locked up in intangible assets that aren’t really worth shit unless they’re actually sold for cash. Most people don’t, though. They see in the news that Bezos is worth $100 billion, for example, and think he can just go down to Wells Fargo and pull $10 billion out of his bank account like they do when they use the ATM. You and I know it’s not like that, but the average person doesn’t understand that, and certainly not the average left-liberal or Democratic voter.

        She continues to exploit this ignorance precisely because, as you said, she established her brand by parroting Marxist tropes about the labor theory of value, and this is the only way she can remain in the spotlight as a senior Democratic leader.

    2. Warren’s wealth tax is particularly stupid because most of the “wealth” she wants to target isn’t even cold, hard cash.

      It’s appealing though because so many people don’t understand the difference between money and wealth. They think every rich person has a swimming pool full of money like Scrooge McDuck.

      If wealth is taxed, then to pay the tax wealth must be liquidated. Who’s going to buy it? Another wealthy person who’s selling off assets in order to pay the tax?

      1. It’s appealing though because so many people don’t understand the difference between money and wealth. They think every rich person has a swimming pool full of money like Scrooge McDuck.

        And she’s certainly displayed the level of cynicism required to exploit that misunderstanding. That’s probably what makes her proposal so sinister.

        What’s interesting about this is that, if her goal was to simply shift our currency circulation back to a more tangible medium–which something like a “wealth” tax on intangible assets might do–all she’d have to do is propose an end to the Federal Reserve and go back to basing the dollar off of the value of gold.

        1. I believe the goal is to tear down the wealthy. Or at least wealthy people with incorrect politics. That’s why Koch is a curse word while Buffet makes progressives feel warm and fuzzy.

      2. And the wealthy never DISCUSS IS the redistribution, from workers and customers, that made the well off wealthy in the first place!

        1. Yes, because workers and customers don’t want the jobs or products being developed by those wealthy bastards.

          After all, if you don’t sign up for Facebook you’re breaking the law…right?

        2. And the wealthy never DISCUSS IS the redistribution, from workers and customers, that made the well off wealthy in the first place!

          You mean when workers get a paycheck in return for their time and effort, or when customers receive goods and services in return for their money?

          How many people’s lives are richer because of Apple, Microsoft and Amazon? I’d say billions. Those companies have enriched the lives of billions of people. They’ve created far more wealth than people Jobs, Gates or Bezos ever amassed.

          1. How many billionaires have been enriched by MANY MORE workers toiling for their ideas and wealth – getting rewarded with crumbs in the end.

            1. Learn some economics, kemosabe.

              1. As an ex-libertairian, ex -Ayn Rander I know the lines..

                1. What changed your mind?

            2. Sure ill bite. So if your options are

              1. Greedy billionaire makes company, hires workers that need job, pays them what they agreed upon when they took job (but they wont get rich from it)
              2. Greedy billionaire decides to spend the money upfront and fully automate, getting rid of said jobs
              3. Greedy billionaire is tired of the bitching and regulations, so decides to cash out, close up shop, put his money in bonds instead to not have the hassle.

              Which one do you want? As a worker, wanting money to feed your family, which one do you want. The billionaire doesn’t have to provide you a job, nothing is owed to anyone. And the worker in said shitty job doesnt have to stay there, it isnt prison. If they are unhappy with the “crumbs” they can take their skills elsewhere or enhance their skills/livelihood.

        3. “And the wealthy never DISCUSS IS the redistribution, from workers and customers, that made the well off wealthy in the first place!”

          9th grade?

  15. Now if she wanted to tax the second homes on Martha’s Vineyard of her progtard supporters, that would be something.

  16. Maybe it’s her opening shot for a 2024 bid…

    1. As chief of the fake Cherokee?

  17. We do have a wealth tax. It’s the inheritance tax. You know, the one that forces people to sell the family farm or family business in order to pay for the privilege of inheriting it.

    1. We also have a wealth tax called real estate taxes ind it works fine!

      1. Like when a retired person has to sell their home because they can’t afford the property taxes? Or were you being sarcastic?

        1. I get what you’re saying, but that doesn’t happen all that often. Retirees tend to get tax breaks of various kinds on their property taxes, depending on where you live, and since the end of World War II, they’ve also made a habit of migrating to lower-tax areas for precisely that reason. Look up the “top ____ places for retirees” lists, and the vast majority of them tend to be in areas where property taxes and/or the general cost of living are lower than the rest of the country.

        2. Not just property taxes. Think of all those large homes heated by natural gas. It may get very expensive soon.

      2. People generally buy a home they can afford to pay the real estate taxes on without selling the house. If you have a billion dollars in Amazon stock, you may not have an extra 30 million lying around in your checking account every year to pay the 3% tax. Well Bezos probably does, but other tech company founders who are uber rich on paper probably don’t.

        Plus the super-wealthy can just move to Switzerland or wherever.

  18. “it won’t work” will outlast Liz Warren

  19. The proposed taxes on the rich have not been enacted but have already been spent 100 times over. Wasn’t it supposed to reduce the deficit, cover the short fall for SS and Medicare, pay for infrastructure, and whatever else. The government greed for power and money has no bounds until total government collapse.

  20. She’s wealthy so of course she wants a wealth tax! The wealthy do NOT pay wealth taxes, the middle class does. I mean, duh.

    She can easily avoid the wealth tax because she has the wealth to avoid it. At the same time she gets points for pretending to care about the poor (who remain taxed). It’s a win-win for the fuckers in D.C.

    Enough with the class warfare shit. Taxes should be to finance the government, period. Make them fair if you need to (a high flat tax with generous standard deduction is fairest) but don’t use them for social engineering purposes.

    1. Taxes should be to finance the government, period.

      Exactly. But then the argument shifts to legitimate functions of government. I’m sure we can agree that government is force, and that force is only legitimate in response to force. However the left will argue that government should be the provider of all things, and to finance that it needs to take everything from everyone.

      1. Yes, we can shift to that argument. But at least we’re in the correct domain and arguing about what government should be doing. Taxes as a social engineering tool or a hammer for class warfare is the worst thing ever. “An abomination unto the Lord”, as they used to say.

        1. In it’s most basic form there are two schools:

          1. The government controls everything.

          2. Everything else.

          Even a limited monarchy is preferable to the first option, since we have actual examples of what option 1 is capable of and we’ve seen every version of #2 that we can really think of.

          1. “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

            ― Robert A. Heinlein

            1. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”


              ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              And for the record, progressive’s do indeed view us as domestic animals. They even wanted to breed better men, just like the Russians thought there was a New Soviet Man. It’s a theme with them, hence the animals in Animal Farm.

              They want to ascend into an earthly Utopia, and share the idiotic belief that man is perfectible though judicious use of the whip and carrot on the common man by the ruling perfected class.

              Turns out the ancient pharaoh of Egypt had it right, by this metric.

    2. Warren’s wealth is in the sub 30-million range.
      Hence the plus 50-million range wealth tax.

  21. “with the top 1 percent of earners paying about 38.5 percent of all income taxes.”

    A poor man loses 3% of his wealth going to the grocery store.

    1. A poor man loses 3% of his wealth going to the grocery store.

      That’s not the fault of the 1%.

      1. To be fair, it ain’t the 99% manipulating your currency at the fed.

        1. True.

  22. I will once again cite OpenBordersLiberal-tarian’s First Law: Ignore what Democrats say they want to do with respect to economic policy, and pay attention to what actually happens when Democrats are in power.

    You’ll quickly understand that Democrats are objectively the pro-billionaire party.
    Musk is up $14.5 billion this year.
    Gates and Ballmer are up about $5 billion each.
    Page and Brin are up about $13 billion each.
    Buffett is up $7.5 billion.
    Ellison is up around $2 billion.

    Finally, Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch is up $3.33 billion, whereas he actually lost $5 billion the last full year we had a Republican President.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires

    1. I get the joke here, but at the same time it is amusing that so many billionaires claim to be Democrats in the U.S. and ‘Liberal’ abroad.

      Either billionaires are selfless givers, or they know which side of the bread their butter is on.

      And it’s weird that they are so demonized if they are indeed so Democratic and Liberal.

      1. Its NOT demonizing billionaires to argue that while many deserve to make more due to hard work and innovative ideas, IT IS POSSIBLE our system over-rewards them – not because I say so -but by historic metrics.

        They are over-rewarded in ways that, through friction in the markets, ie RAMPANT corporate wage suppression that under-rewards labor. Also over-rewarded by industry concentration that interferes in free markets. Many low-competition industries have inflated profits which inflates the wealth of the concentrated ownership of companies.

        Show me a billionaire and you will see many workers who made him so………Maybe you are right that lefty billionaires (aware of the game) are deceptive in supporting policies counter to their interests…

        1. Nice theory, but workers are free to work for someone else.

          1. LOL wealthy have whats called WEALTH (i e Reserves)

            …which means they can ALWAYS outlast workers to gain the upper bargain.

        2. Over rewards? Compared to what? Decided by whom? Based on what negative results?

          Labor is the biggest cost to just about every business in existence, so to say they are ‘underpaid’ is hilarious. Why do you think Amazon costs so much to operate, and why labor is where they try to reduce costs through automation?

          If Bezos could hire ‘undocumented’ labor from Mexico instead of build expensive machines, he would, and that’s because those jobs would take basically no knowledge whatsoever to do and one ‘unit’ of labor is equal to any other ‘unit’ of labor. And it would be cheap, as decided by the market for labor.

          I.E. You are the bottom of the employment rungs in those jobs and shouldn’t consider your labor to be worth very much. ESPECIALLY in a ‘Free Market’, because there are lots of people who are willing and able to do the job for less. That’s how ‘value’ works, friend, in a market sense.

          What you are thinking of is a command economy, and those ‘market failures’ actually kill people. You want labor value to be decided by a central authority, rather than markets or market forces. And furthermore, you mistake cause and effect with how corporations gain power. They gain power from the governments interference, not the other way around.

          1. If it were a truly free market then maybe these imbalance would not exists.

            Free market means NO asymmetric relationships between labor and employers. ie single worker against unified employer.

            Free market means many less powerful employer in which to work, NOT few concentrated industries with limited competition to be employed. Lots of unemployment and stagnant wages are now from industry concentration ie fewer employers.. google the studies.

            And yes employers will hire machines as fast as they can..this is coming down the pike. Lets see what happens when labor markets break down even.

            I agree taxes are a terrible way to right the imbalances currently in our “free labor markets”

            1. Free market means many less powerful employer in which to work, NOT few concentrated industries with limited competition to be employed.
              So forcing small businesses to close but Walmart is open was a bad idea and now you oppose government mandated lockdowns?

    2. It’s almost as if having Republicans in charge is bad for the economy, and a bad economy hurts everybody including the rich.

  23. Reason contributor Brendan O’Neill.

    Yes, the Biden administration really is doing all of the above. Unaccompanied youths who cross the border from Mexico are being incarcerated. Kids aged 13 to 17 are being banged up. Towards the end of February the Biden administration reopened detention centres for immigrant kids in both Texas and Florida. ‘Kids in cages?’, I hear you ask. Of course not. These are now youths in ‘overflow facilities’.

    That’s the language being used. Out has gone CNN’s handwringing over ‘kids in cages’ and those staged photos of AOC weeping outside ‘concentration camps’ and those broadsheet editorials about how putting child migrants into camps has ‘echoes of the 1930s’, etc etc. Now all the talk is of ‘overflow facilities’ designed to ‘assist’ unaccompanied young arrivals. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Democrat New York mayor Bill de Blasio described the Homestead facility in Florida as a ‘prison camp’ when the Trump administration was putting unaccompanied youths in there. He hasn’t said a word since the same facility was reopened by the Biden administration for the same purpose. It’s almost as if he doesn’t actually have any principles.

  24. This woman is nuts. $1.3 Trillion in increased wealth for the wealthy is a fake stat. Sure from mid march portfolios are up, but since mid February not as much. And what a lame excuse for an unconstitutional tax! The stock market is up? It goes down too.
    She claims on CNBC that employed people earning $30K are 20% unemployed. This cannot be. She is delusional to think earners are unemployed.

  25. Progressive Fascist never let small things like facts, reality and science deter or bound their desire to confiscate other people’s property and limit or eliminate freedoms.

    How about a tax on politicians? How about a 100% tax on all past, present and future earnings and wealth for Ms. Warren and all the other feckless, envy and hatred-fueled demagogues?

    1. “Progressive Fascist” is an oxymoron.

      1. No, it’s a redundancy.

  26. Warren, like Psaki, has repeatedly invoked the idea that a wealth tax would help ensure that the rich pay their “fair share”—nevermind that the rich fund a disproportionate share of tax revenues, with the top 1 percent of earners paying about 38.5 percent of all income taxes.

    Given that they have more than 38.5% of the money, that hardly shows they’re paying their “fair share.”

    1. Thanks for outing yourself as a thief that needs the government to rob from people because you’re too much of a lazy sack of shit to do it yourself.

    2. Wealth != income. Wealth is not money. Money is cash in hand that can be spent.

    3. Given that they have more than 38.5% of the money,

      Er, no, they don’t. The top 1% in income have 25.4% of the wealth, which is decidedly less than 38.5%, not more.

      I expect, though, that being wrong on the objective facts isn’t going to cause you to change your position on taxes, because you have the integrity of wet toilet paper.

    4. And given that there is more ‘money’ in circulation than actually physically exists, we must therefore understand that ‘money’ is not actually a finite good after all.

      So your point is basically a non-sequitur from the get go.

      In fact anyone with a brain might notice that a savings account is, in effect, a depreciating good.

      I’m sure the government continuing to print money like it’s going out of style will have no other tack on effects to our economy, right? Because like most communists, you believe government spending is magic and can exceed what is collected forever.

      And, news flash, there is no amount of taxation that could cover what the government is spending. 100% would not be enough.

    5. Tony doesn’t even know how a progressive tax works. Classic Tony.

  27. While I agree it’s a terrible idea, I also think it’s inevitable – because it sounds great to the socialists who are growing in popularity. On the plus side, it will put the fear of God into the billionaires. They will start to realize that it’s cheaper to fund retirement/voting colonies directly. Then the question is: who to invite?

  28. On the plus side, it will put the fear of God into the billionaires.

    No, it won’t. That’s the joke–if these left-wing billionaires seriously thought they’d get hit by this stupid wealth tax proposal, Warren would be Epstein’ed in a flash. Anything that passes remotely resembling this is going to have all sorts of carve-outs and exceptions built in that will inevitably pass over the Bezos/Buffets of the country. That’s the very reason it’s not gaining any kind of traction in the media.

    1. It will succeed because you cowardly fight only your allies here in your safe space. Meanwhile the socialists are winning the battle out in the real world.

      Plus many millionaires will support the tax. Why? Because it’s a small price to pay to legitimize their wealth. For example, the tax on a $60m fortune will be only $200k. Many will be happy to pay that. They can say, “I did my part.”

      1. Ok, glowie.

        1. You think I’m a fed? HAHA that’s cute.

          1. No, we think you are stupid.

  29. The largest problem with the wealth tax is that nobody considers the allocation of resources. A wealth tax doesn’t mean imaginary numbers transfer from individual ownership to govt ownership. It means out of pocket spending by individuals that they were otherwise using for some purpose. Whether that means investing or spending, the wealth tax is just another Democrat failure to understand that the utilitarian flaw of taxation is the faulty assumption that governments better allocate resources than free markets.

    And as we all know here, governments are quite possibly the worst mechanism to allocate resources in recorded human history.

  30. No matter how much they confiscate with this wealth tax, it will never be enough. They will want more.

  31. Aside from the very obvious point that they have shown they are comfortable spending far above and beyond their means every time they have a budget, and every time they get more money they just increase spending further…

    The big lie here, repeated by the retard “sqkwad” in congress, is that “trust us, we just have to tax the rich a little more, thats all, and we can have our utopia”. They know full well that aside from sheltering money from taxes or finding ways to avoid these silly taxes, even if they could get every cent from the rich it wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to pay for their little dream list. The taxes will have to come from the middle class. They have lied about this over and over (only Bernie was honest) and this is what will happen. Enjoy your tax hike, middle class, because that is what’s coming. That is where the money pot is.

    Then we of course have the issue of the fact that wealth was already taxed (initial tax, capital gains tax) and will be taxed AGAIN (inheritance tax).

  32. We will all be paying the wealth tax. Watch what happens to your investments when the rich just waste instead of reinvest their money after they hit the limit.

    1. This is the simplest answer to the problem, and exactly what I intend to do.

      Tell me what the limit is. I’ll go right up to it, then move as much of it as I can into protected avenues, and if that isn’t enough, looks like the wife and I can use some new cars, or a few months in Bora Bora, or some vintage wines / bourbon, a new wine cellar, or a lambo would look pretty good in the driveway. The money will certainly be splurged before the govt gets their hands on it.

      It could have sat in some stocks/bonds and kept everyone’s 401ks in better standing, but if govt wont allow it to be there, then I guess fuck everyone’s 401k.

  33. “It won’t work.” isn’t a very powerful rebuttal, Reason. Not to something so chilling. I wouldn’t want to live in a country with a wealth tax. I’d also find it extremely awkward to live in a country with a 70+% top marginal income tax rate, another proposal that those quack academics at Berkeley backed. If that bartender got her 70% rate implemented, I’d be putting together a relo to a less crazy country, probably in Asia.

    I see it as a tragedy that income taxes have become normalized in this culture. And very steep income taxes at that, much higher than the few percent they started with in 1913 or thereabouts. It’s very hard to distinguish an income from slavery. It’s not equivalent to a plantation where you can be literally bought and sold in toto, but it’s not the opposite either. Call it *soft slavery*, always having to surrender a portion of your earnings to fund things you don’t consent to funding, up to and including a huge megastate.

    Not only does the rate increase the more productive you are, but there’s no tie between your use of any government services or benefits and the amount you pay – they’re orthogonal. And the rates can be anything – there’s no cap or regulation of rate changes, and they can change at any time based on really small and subtle shifts in some election cycle. And I think it’s a huge injustice that the amount people pay isn’t capped. Any income tax is probably unacceptable on multiple grounds, but if we were going to have one the tax should be capped. So say only the first $100,000 is subject to tax (maybe exempt the first $10k or $25k or something). Or $200k, or $80k, I don’t know, just don’t have it be infinite like it is now. That’s exploitative, and no one should be paying a million dollars a year or something – they’re not costing the government anywhere near a million dollars.

    At some point I hope we can motivate and organize much more vigorous resistance to these taxes. Eventually I assume we’ll see widespread resistance and non-compliance in a 70% scenario or similar. The quacks at Berkeley don’t seem to be modeling the kind of behavior changes I’d expect in these scenarios, and leftists in general seem to assume compliance. I would hope that Americans wake up instead. We don’t need income taxes to achieve any liberty or civilizational goals, and we shouldn’t allow them.

  34. Also the high amounts listed are simply so they can get their foot in the door. Guarantee that 50 million would be 10 million after one year, and decrease from there. The high amount is just so the largest amount of people will think “oh that’s just for the monopoly guy, those amounts will never affect me”.

    Once its a norm, itll be lowered sequentially to get as much money as they can while keeping the maximum number of voters in their pocket.

  35. “nevermind that the rich fund a disproportionate share of tax revenues, with the top 1 percent of earners paying about 38.5 percent of all income taxes”

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Wealth and income should never be conflated. Elon could have paid himself $1 this year, had zero income, and increased his wealth by $100,000,000,000.

    Did you know that working Americans already pay a very substantial wealth tax? For a large swath of the middle class, all of their wealth is tied up in their homes. They pay a wealth tax on it, even when the bank might own most of it! Many, many working Americans are paying a 2-10% annual tax on their wealth equity!

    1. That’s interesting, but the homeowner also gets 100% of the capital gain.

    2. That sounds horrible. We should probably put an end to properly taxes so poor people don’t lose their homes to the government.

    3. in calif we pay an ad valorem tax of APPROX 1% on the price we PAID, plus a maximum of 2% increase on that valuation per year. buy a house for 200k pay about $2,000 per year plus a yearly bump of 2% of the 200,000

      in other states they DO reassess yearly or so and BUTTFUCK THE OWNERS with hiogher multipliers on those assessments. we recommend you ALL look into prop 13 to help stop the COMING property tax tsunami by BROKE counties and municipalities

  36. I’m all for wealth confiscation, if the wealth was obtained in a corrupt manner. You know, a Senator or Congressman gets a salary of $174K and then somehow exits congress a few years later worth $40 or $50 Million..hmmm… Or, maybe money made through government protectionism, tax loopholes, subsidies, etc. should be reclaimed. We all complain about the corporate/government complex and how corrupt it is; I’m thinking the ill gotten gains of this racket are what we should be targeting. Not, the wealth of hard working innovators and entrepreneurs who made their money the honest way.

  37. When I look at the ridiculous projects my local government has begun after the latest windfall, I’m against the tax.

  38. oddbox
    Hey check this out helpful blog,oddbox

  39. A constitutional amendment was needed before an income tax was imposed. Why wouldn’t a constitutional amendment be needed for a wealth tax? Fortunately, there are enough states with sanity to ensure that such an amendment would never be passed.

  40. It’d be odd for a magazine owned by fuckheads like the Kochs to advocate otherwise.

    Heaven forbid we ever entertain raising taxes on the wealthy.

  41. I saw a telling quote from her on CNBC on stock buybacks:

    “They [companies buying back stock] got a little fluff-and-buff in their stock. And how did they do that? By taking their excess cash and saying, ‘Geez, we can’t figure out anything to do with this cash. We’re not going to give it back to our investors. We’re going to make the investment decision that the only investment in America that makes any sense is to buy back our own stock.’”

    I’m lost. How is a stock buyback _not_ giving money back to investors? Who does she think companies are buying the stock back _from_?!? Does she not realize that paying a dividend and buying back stock are just two ways of sending profits from a company to the investors?

    This is the person who wants to redesign our financial regulatory system? Why does anyone still listen to her?

    1. Dumb bitch. buying back stock is the DEFINITION of giving it back to investors AND at the price the market calls for, not the company doing the buyback. any investor not wanting to sell simply declines.

  42. Not that I am for this ridiculous idea, but I guess I am not surprised that none of the projected revenue is planned to be used to pay down the debt. Sad. Other’s people money….

  43. Well, in my own opinion, Elizabeth Warren seems to be a decent human.
    Now, saying that the wealth tax wouldnt work is something i can not understand, somehow i believe the lady’s moves are for the greater good.
    https://hiphopafrika.com/mp3/bad-company-2020-songs-fakaza-manizo/
    What do i know though, asides a few people like her, i am also interested in Bad Company, Amapiano.

  44. that dumb bitch needs to shut her fat yapper. go ahead Liz…do your worst. i ASSURE you that those who earn and grow their wealth will find a way to simply step over you and your retard lefty friends as they attempt to take what you have not earned. you will be a mere speedbump. a trifle and fart that is easily avoided

  45. Well, in my own opinion, Elizabeth Warren seems to be a decent human. https://sahubs.com/
    Now, saying that the wealth tax wouldnt work is something i can not understand, somehow i believe the lady’s moves are for the greater good.

  46. Now, saying that the wealth tax wouldnt work is something i can not understand, somehow i believe the lady’s moves are for the greater good. https://fakazavibes.com/

Comments are closed.