Anonymous wrote:Am confused. If a constitutional amendment was needed for a federal income tax how could one not be needed for a federal wealth tax?

Anonymous wrote:Will she still allow her elite friends to fly their private jets?
How will that square the her green new deal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. According to an article cited earlier in this thread there are only 1400 or so tax returns showing income of $60 million or more.

Let's be generous and double that number to estimate how many show greater than $50 million in income. Let us further be generous in assuming that the average income of these 3,000 returns is $500 million. The tax proposed is 2%. That gives you $30 billion, or about 3% of out total deficit. The over $50 million tax would barely make a dent in our deficit, let alone pay for free college, free health care, and forgiveness of all student loans (total outstanding $1.5 trillion).

She definitely will have to rely on the upper and middle classes to fund all these programs, and that's not even taking into account any incentive effects the 2% tax would have on these large earners. (I have heard from people who have worked with Warren that she does not understand incentive effects, a significant strike against her and her policy positions.)

Oh, geez. I hate it when people inject facts into a debate.

Hmm. So what does Liz's website say?

For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.

The result is an extreme concentration of wealth not seen in any other leading economy. The 400 richest Americans currently own more wealth than all Black households and a quarter of Latino households combined. According to an analysis from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman from the University of California-Berkeley, the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period. Put another way, the richest 130,000 families in America now hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 117 million families combined.

Ultra-millionaire tax graphic
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by bottom 90% and top 0.1% obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (Saez and Zucman 2016). The unit of analysis is the family.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.



Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)

Except.... it is probably unconstitutional.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/25/wealth-tax-that-pesky-constitution-might-get-in-the-way/#973d5c9779c1
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-democrats-proposals-unconstitutional
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

Oh wow the Federalist thinks a Democratic proposal is unconstitutional. Color me surprised.

Liz's website says:
Leading constitutional law scholars believe the Ultra-Millionaire Tax is constitutional:

Legal experts have submitted two separate letters in support of the constitutionality of this proposal.

I recommend the bloomberg article which you posted which lays out the issue nicely. Thank you for posting that:

"The truth is, in the light of the conservative resurgence on the court, it’s a genuinely open question whether the justices would strike down a tax on a proportion of total assets. A case would likely be decided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the swing voter.

The intentions of the Constitution’s framers are unclear. The judicial precedent cuts both ways. And the 16th Amendment, which allowed an income tax, doesn’t address a wealth tax that isn’t on income. The court’s decision would have to consider all three."

This is an open question up to judicial interpretation. Whether it is "probably unconstitutional" depends on SCOTUS.

She seems like she is your kind of candidate. She obviously has your vote.
Me? No way. I am not willing to risk our entire economy for proposals that would essentially turn over many of our programs to a federal govt. that cannot balance their own budget. Nor will I vote for a candidate with the HOPE that a major proposal of hers will not be ruled unconstitutional.
(and, color ME surprised that she found a few people to convince her fans that what she is proposing is constitutional)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. According to an article cited earlier in this thread there are only 1400 or so tax returns showing income of $60 million or more.

Let's be generous and double that number to estimate how many show greater than $50 million in income. Let us further be generous in assuming that the average income of these 3,000 returns is $500 million. The tax proposed is 2%. That gives you $30 billion, or about 3% of out total deficit. The over $50 million tax would barely make a dent in our deficit, let alone pay for free college, free health care, and forgiveness of all student loans (total outstanding $1.5 trillion).

She definitely will have to rely on the upper and middle classes to fund all these programs, and that's not even taking into account any incentive effects the 2% tax would have on these large earners. (I have heard from people who have worked with Warren that she does not understand incentive effects, a significant strike against her and her policy positions.)

Oh, geez. I hate it when people inject facts into a debate.

Hmm. So what does Liz's website say?

For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.

The result is an extreme concentration of wealth not seen in any other leading economy. The 400 richest Americans currently own more wealth than all Black households and a quarter of Latino households combined. According to an analysis from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman from the University of California-Berkeley, the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period. Put another way, the richest 130,000 families in America now hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 117 million families combined.

Ultra-millionaire tax graphic
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by bottom 90% and top 0.1% obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (Saez and Zucman 2016). The unit of analysis is the family.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.



Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)

Except.... it is probably unconstitutional.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/25/wealth-tax-that-pesky-constitution-might-get-in-the-way/#973d5c9779c1
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-democrats-proposals-unconstitutional
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

Probably?

Nope. It is obviously unconstitutional.

And it has failed in every European country that has tried it.

Liz is selling snake oil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. According to an article cited earlier in this thread there are only 1400 or so tax returns showing income of $60 million or more.

Let's be generous and double that number to estimate how many show greater than $50 million in income. Let us further be generous in assuming that the average income of these 3,000 returns is $500 million. The tax proposed is 2%. That gives you $30 billion, or about 3% of out total deficit. The over $50 million tax would barely make a dent in our deficit, let alone pay for free college, free health care, and forgiveness of all student loans (total outstanding $1.5 trillion).

She definitely will have to rely on the upper and middle classes to fund all these programs, and that's not even taking into account any incentive effects the 2% tax would have on these large earners. (I have heard from people who have worked with Warren that she does not understand incentive effects, a significant strike against her and her policy positions.)

Oh, geez. I hate it when people inject facts into a debate.

Hmm. So what does Liz's website say?

For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.

The result is an extreme concentration of wealth not seen in any other leading economy. The 400 richest Americans currently own more wealth than all Black households and a quarter of Latino households combined. According to an analysis from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman from the University of California-Berkeley, the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period. Put another way, the richest 130,000 families in America now hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 117 million families combined.

Ultra-millionaire tax graphic
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by bottom 90% and top 0.1% obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (Saez and Zucman 2016). The unit of analysis is the family.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.



Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)

Except.... it is probably unconstitutional.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/25/wealth-tax-that-pesky-constitution-might-get-in-the-way/#973d5c9779c1
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-democrats-proposals-unconstitutional
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

Oh wow the Federalist thinks a Democratic proposal is unconstitutional. Color me surprised.

Liz's website says:
Leading constitutional law scholars believe the Ultra-Millionaire Tax is constitutional:

Legal experts have submitted two separate letters in support of the constitutionality of this proposal.

I recommend the bloomberg article which you posted which lays out the issue nicely. Thank you for posting that:

"The truth is, in the light of the conservative resurgence on the court, it’s a genuinely open question whether the justices would strike down a tax on a proportion of total assets. A case would likely be decided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the swing voter.

The intentions of the Constitution’s framers are unclear. The judicial precedent cuts both ways. And the 16th Amendment, which allowed an income tax, doesn’t address a wealth tax that isn’t on income. The court’s decision would have to consider all three."

This is an open question up to judicial interpretation. Whether it is "probably unconstitutional" depends on SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. According to an article cited earlier in this thread there are only 1400 or so tax returns showing income of $60 million or more.

Let's be generous and double that number to estimate how many show greater than $50 million in income. Let us further be generous in assuming that the average income of these 3,000 returns is $500 million. The tax proposed is 2%. That gives you $30 billion, or about 3% of out total deficit. The over $50 million tax would barely make a dent in our deficit, let alone pay for free college, free health care, and forgiveness of all student loans (total outstanding $1.5 trillion).

She definitely will have to rely on the upper and middle classes to fund all these programs, and that's not even taking into account any incentive effects the 2% tax would have on these large earners. (I have heard from people who have worked with Warren that she does not understand incentive effects, a significant strike against her and her policy positions.)

Oh, geez. I hate it when people inject facts into a debate.

Hmm. So what does Liz's website say?

For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.

The result is an extreme concentration of wealth not seen in any other leading economy. The 400 richest Americans currently own more wealth than all Black households and a quarter of Latino households combined. According to an analysis from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman from the University of California-Berkeley, the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period. Put another way, the richest 130,000 families in America now hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 117 million families combined.

Ultra-millionaire tax graphic
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by bottom 90% and top 0.1% obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (Saez and Zucman 2016). The unit of analysis is the family.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.



Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)

Except.... it is probably unconstitutional.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/25/wealth-tax-that-pesky-constitution-might-get-in-the-way/#973d5c9779c1
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-democrats-proposals-unconstitutional
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. According to an article cited earlier in this thread there are only 1400 or so tax returns showing income of $60 million or more.

Let's be generous and double that number to estimate how many show greater than $50 million in income. Let us further be generous in assuming that the average income of these 3,000 returns is $500 million. The tax proposed is 2%. That gives you $30 billion, or about 3% of out total deficit. The over $50 million tax would barely make a dent in our deficit, let alone pay for free college, free health care, and forgiveness of all student loans (total outstanding $1.5 trillion).

She definitely will have to rely on the upper and middle classes to fund all these programs, and that's not even taking into account any incentive effects the 2% tax would have on these large earners. (I have heard from people who have worked with Warren that she does not understand incentive effects, a significant strike against her and her policy positions.)

Oh, geez. I hate it when people inject facts into a debate.

Hmm. So what does Liz's website say?

For decades, the wealthy and the well-connected have put American government to work for their own narrow interests. As a result, a small group of families has taken a massive amount of the wealth American workers have produced, while America’s middle class has been hollowed out.

The result is an extreme concentration of wealth not seen in any other leading economy. The 400 richest Americans currently own more wealth than all Black households and a quarter of Latino households combined. According to an analysis from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman from the University of California-Berkeley, the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period. Put another way, the richest 130,000 families in America now hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 117 million families combined.

Ultra-millionaire tax graphic
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by bottom 90% and top 0.1% obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (Saez and Zucman 2016). The unit of analysis is the family.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.



Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)

Except.... it is probably unconstitutional.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/25/wealth-tax-that-pesky-constitution-might-get-in-the-way/#973d5c9779c1
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-democrats-proposals-unconstitutional
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional