Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax

1. 84

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   Warren seems to be gaing ground on her quest for the nomination, so perhaps it is time to look seriously at some of her proposals.
   
   Her Wealth Tax claims to bring in $2.75 Trillion over ten years, yet non-partisan economists have projected her plan would achieve only 50%, (or less), of that goal.
   
   She has spending plans that equal that $2.75 Trillion income estimate, but what will she do when she only gets half, or less, of her projected income? Who will pay the increased taxes needed to cover her shortfall?
   
   In 1996 14 countries had a wealth tax, and as of 2018 only 3 still do. Wealth Tax plans have proven so unsuccessful that 80% of countries dropped them.
   
   Factcheck.org's Warren Wealth Tax article is a good one. It is worth the read for the details.
   
   I think Warren is a smart business and finances savvy person, so I think she knows better than the claims she is making. I have called her a panderer for offing "plans" (promises), like this one just to get the votes when I think she knows better. Shame on her, it tarnishes her credibility in my mind.
   
   ps. there are a lot of other real-world negatives to her plan that can be seen here: The Destructive Impact of Wealth Taxation
   
   Do you support Warren's Wealth Tax?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 74

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Three things stuck me. 
      
      Although I will not receive any benefit from her plan, the things that I worked to pay for (child care, preK schooling, increased teacher wages - my wife was a teacher - college tuition, student debt and health insurance) will all be paid for by someone other than the party benefiting.
      
      Interesting that she thinks she can get away with confiscating 40% of what a person has built if they decide not to put up with her money grab program and leave the country.
      
      Finally, that most Americans think it is a good idea to remove incentive to work and force others to pay for what we want but don't want to work for.  We have indeed become a nation of entitled children.
      
      No, I have to agree that it won't raise anything like what she claims it will, and that in any case it is neither good for the country or ethical.  We do not own what other people have worked to build, no matter how greedy we get or how much we want it.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   Nope. She doesn't live in reality, and she doesn't understand basic economics.
   
   

   replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

   I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the details, as it will never be implemented as planned anyway.  I wait until these things are actually introduced in Congress to pay attention to the details.  Doing so now is a waste of time, in my opinion.
   
   If one is not worrying over the details, the question then becomes, do I agree with the basic philosophy of the candidate, and do I trust her to have the skills and knowledge to at least partially achieve her goals?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with this, with the caveat that looking at what she wants to do (or any candidate) is an indication of their basic philosophy.
      
      Warren seems tightly tied to the philosophy of taking what others have built for themselves and giving it to those that want it but won't build for themselves.  If we agree with that philosophy she may be a reasonable candidate for our votes.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with your first paragraph.
         
         Your second paragraph is just your interpretation.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hard to "interpret" her latest, the "take the wealth" program in any other way, isn't it?  She would force the wealthy to give up over a trillion dollars to her, to be used to buy things people want but do not like paying for, like child care or secondary education.  You can re-word it to make it sound more palatable, but it remains a money grab so it can be given away.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Typical you. I've been reading your take on taxes for years and it never changes.  Of course, you only complain about using taxes to invest in programs that educate, feed, or otherwise help.people, with nary a word about the bloated defense budget or tax loopholes that allow corporations to contribute nothing to the system that sustains them. It's all about priorities, isn't it? Yours are vastly different from mine. I'm sure you approve of Trump appropriating billions for his vanity wall, as that is more important to you than schools or day care.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No, it isn't about priorities.  It's about the long term effect of what you call "helping" people; when you chain them to govt. charity for a lifetime it isn't helping anyone at all.  It's destroying what makes us human, it removes any pride in ourselves and it destroys any incentive to improve.  In the long run it is extremely destructive to our nation and can only result in falling standards of living for all.
                  
                  Just like your "vanity wall" to make scarce resources available for our people rather than giving them away to illegal aliens that come to feed at the American trough while driving wage prices down.  You want to look only at the results of today's efforts, not what happens tomorrow.
                  
                  And, of course, that doesn't even mention the reason to name it a vanity wall; you know and understand very well what the purpose is, but don't like that purpose so will attempt to arouse disgust at the concept of protecting our borders from invasion rather than make an honest effort to determine the value of a wall.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You say "invasion." I say "vanity wall." We both consider these terms to be justified. We see things very differently. Always have and always will.

                     replyreport
   2. 84

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You have a good point Sandy, but it is her "basic philosopy" that is now worrying me.
      
      I thought I understood the basic philosophy of 2008 Elizabeth Warren; she wanted to reign in the destructive power of Big Money and Big Markets and get rid of the corruption they engendered.
      
      The philosophy of 2018 Candidate Warren seems to have changed. For me, her previously admired financial savvy and personal integrity has changed to "political savvy" that has caused her to take positions that are unrealistic, (and I think she knows it), which is damaging to that personal integrity I previously admired.
      
      I don't mean to harshly beat-up on her, she certainly isn't the worst of the lot, but I am disappointed in the change.
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I understand your point.

         replyreport