Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[izixs]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

In a world where doing the right thing means the powerful have even slightly less power, those with that power will still fight tooth and nail against the right thing to avoid even a minor loss.

We should never care what the wealthy want in terms of policy because every time they will craft it to benefit them at everyone else's expense. And will block anything that doesn't do exactly that if they can.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

It’s always been 2%... that’s where Warren’s “2 cents” chant comes from.

[GP270watch]

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

 Warren, a front-runner in the 2020 presidential race, is proposing a 2% tax on household net worth above $50 million and a 6% tax on net worth over $1 billion.


 So for every million you have over $50 million you'd pay a tax of $20,000 per million.

 For every million you have over a billion dollars you'd pay $60,000 in tax per million.

This is what people are calling radical and unachievable, pretty crazy.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/cbszak/status/1192499183632224256

While I have no issues with Melody Barnes and the various HBCU presidents, Deval Patrick is very concerning to me. We don't need vulture capitalists or predatory lenders in a Democratic administration.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren wants Deval Patrick in her cabinet

"It's about having people who are fighters," Warren said. "It's about having people who are in the fight and want to be in the fight and are going to stay in the fight."

When Rye pressed her for specific names, Warren mentioned former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Melody Barnes, who served as a domestic policy adviser under former President Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/elizabeth-warren-cabinet-deval-patrick


Yes, this Deval Patrick.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deval-patrick-corruption-power-elite_n_5c0578afe4b066b5cfa49b66

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

It’s always been 2%... that’s where Warren’s “2 cents” chant comes from.

Are we just memory-holing her entire healthcare funding proposal?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Also, Warren constantly acts like "oh it's just 2 cents we're asking them to give up."  Well it's not 2 cents, it's 2 cents per dollar, or 2% of your total wealth.  But more importantly, it's 2% per year.

When you're saving for retirement, the expectation is that, on average, your retirement savings (a.k.a. "wealth") will grow at 4% above inflation.  Add on a 2% tax to your entire wealth portfolio, now you've cut your growth in half.

That's different from raising income taxes, where the money is hit once and can then compound year over year.  This is Warren wanting to hit the same money again and again and again until it's gone.

Like let's say you made $150,000 last year and after paying a 33% effective tax rate, you've got $100,000 left over.  Warren takes 2%, so after one year, you have $98,000.  But she keeps coming back to the well.  That $150,000 you earned this year will never stop being taxed!  After ten years, you've only got $81,707 left.  That's almost 50% of that money gone!  In 30 years, it's down to $54,548.  So after 30 years you've paid 2/3 of the money you earned this year to the government.

Let's say you're a professional athlete and you make all your money when you're young.  LeBron has $400M, he expects to be able to live on that for the rest of his life, use it to provide for his family and his children and grandchildren.  But joke's on him, he's got 60 years of Warren taxing him to look forward to.  After 60 years, he'll have paid $280,000,000 to Warren's tax, and have only $120,000,000 left over, effectively a 70% tax on everything he has over his lifetime.

Now, some of you are thinking "lol poor LeBron he only has $120 million" and sure, I don't want to have that argument.  If that's what Warren really wants to do, take 70% of Lebron James' wealth by the time he dies, she should own it.  Be up front about it.  Stop with the farce that this is just some little tax.  Stop with the farce that "oh these billionaires are so miserly they can't even part with 2 cents."  We're talking about essentially eliminating the fortunes of wealthy people.

Of course, in practice, we're talking about LeBron moving all his money to the Cayman islands and possibly switching citizenship.  Cause ain't nobody actually gonna pay that tax.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Here's another f***ed up thing about the wealth tax.  For generations now the government has been trying to encourage people to save their money.  Save for retirement!  Invest in the stock market!  Buy bonds!

But now, if you follow this sage advice, your money is going to get hammered by the wealth tax.  Year after year after year.  So if you're LeBron and you have a choice... invest your money in stocks and bonds to facilitate economic growth, or go spend it... what will you do?

A lot of wealthy people will go spend the money, or try to spend it sooner, so they don't lose it to taxation.  They'll try to buy assets that they can undervalue, or keep off the books.  Why invest $400M in your local economy and get taxed for 20% over 10 years when you can buy a whole bunch of priceless artwork and hide the money from the government?  Or you can buy 20 classic Ferraris.  Or you can buy a private island, or an estate in a foreign country, or some obscene luxury item.  Of course, none of this benefits the American economy, but it's the most financially responsible move.

[GP270watch]

What are you babbling about this has nothing to do with saving for retirement. This tax starts at $50 million for the 2% and $1 billion for 6%. This is not about your 401k.

[GP270watch]

 They'll try to buy assets that they can undervalue, or keep off the books.  Why invest $400M in your local economy and get taxed for 20% over 10 years when you can buy a whole bunch of priceless artwork and hide the money from the government?  Or you can buy 20 classic Ferraris.  Or you can buy a private island, or an estate in a foreign country, or some obscene luxury item.  Of course, none of this benefits the American economy, but it's the most financially responsible move.

 Your math is all kinds of wrong. That's not how these taxes work. Nobody's going to spend $1,000,000 whole dollars to not pay $20k in taxes. And if they do they've stimulated the economy more so than hoarding it. They would also pay way more tax if they bought a $1,000,000 Ferrari than Warren's wealth tax in the form of sales tax on the purchase of the car. In addition the car would still have a value and would be calculated in a person's net-worth. So it would still be subject to Warren's tax anyways since it's a possession even if it is a depreciating asset. If in the future it becomes collectable it would be an appreciating asset and its appreciation would be subject to taxes.

 If that person was still an American citizen all those purchases you listed would be subject to Warren's wealth taxes. That's why Warren prescribed a wealth tax and not an income tax because the rich do hide their money in assets like art, land, real estate, and collectible cars. It's also not very hard to value these assets if they have any real value because the rich always insure these assets against theft, lost, or damage.
 
 

[GP270watch]

Also, Warren constantly acts like "oh it's just 2 cents we're asking them to give up."  Well it's not 2 cents, it's 2 cents per dollar, or 2% of your total wealth.  But more importantly, it's 2% per year.


Let's say you're a professional athlete and you make all your money when you're young.  LeBron has $400M, he expects to be able to live on that for the rest of his life, use it to provide for his family and his children and grandchildren.  But joke's on him, he's got 60 years of Warren taxing him to look forward to.  After 60 years, he'll have paid $280,000,000 to Warren's tax, and have only $120,000,000 left over, effectively a 70% tax on everything he has over his lifetime.

 Bro please stop embarrassing yourself with these atrocious examples that are not even mathematically correct.

 A fortune of $400 million managed in even the most conservative ways will gain untold millions over 60 years of generating income, even with the taxes being proposed. This is why it's fair for the wealthy to pay more taxes. You clearly don't understand how money works.

 I think American's financial illiteracy has a lot to do with why we have allowed this wealth inequality. Crying about a multi-millionaire being taxed an extra 20K on every million after 50 million, so that a working person who actually makes $20k an entire year can go to college or get child care is freaking insane.

 

[izixs]

What are you babbling about this has nothing to do with saving for retirement. This tax starts at $50 million for the 2% and $1 billion for 6%. This is not about your 401k.

Ah, but if you claim it is about something it clearly is not as a starting point, you can talk out your backside for as long as you want and possibly get someone to believe your nonsense via just pilling on a whole structure on that quicksand of foundation. If they buy the house before noticing the lies its based on, then you've won the day.

Yeah there has been a ton of out right bonkers attacks on Warren of late that universally rely on either this sort of exact thing where you start with a total fabrication about her or what she's proposing and just running with it for as long as they can get away with it or taking something innocuous and holding it up as the prime example of her ultimate evil. Its all getting super old.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What are you babbling about this has nothing to do with saving for retirement. This tax starts at $50 million for the 2% and $1 billion for 6%. This is not about your 401k.

Who said anything about 401Ks?  I only used retirement to illustrate the standard expectation for annual growth.

This is about how wealth will entirely disappear over time if you are taxing it at 2% per year, which is Warren's proposal.

This tax starts at $50 million for the 2% and $1 billion for 6%.

Wait, where did 6% come from?  Is this a new thing?  Is Warren actually proposing a 6% annual wealth tax?  Last I checked it was 2% for wealth over $50M, did I miss something?  Please tell me she didn't make it even more ludicrous.

A fortune of $400 million managed in even the most conservative ways will gain untold millions over 60 years of generating income, even with the taxes being proposed. This is why it's fair for the wealthy to pay more taxes. You clearly don't understand how money works.

This goes back to my retirement account example.  You usually expect 4% annual growth over inflation.  With a 2% wealth tax, that's cut in half.  But my example about LeBron, which you quoted, was intentionally not incorporation investments or any other factors, because I wanted to illustrate how $400M would disappear if it was taxed at 2% annually over the remainder of LeBron's life.

Your math is all kinds of wrong. That's not how these taxes work. Nobody's going to spend $1,000,000 whole dollars to not pay $20k in taxes. And if they do they've stimulated the economy more so than hoarding it. They would also pay way more tax if they bought a $1,000,000 Ferrari than Warren's wealth tax in the form of sales tax on the purchase of the car.

Well, four states don't have a sales tax, but lets take the normal sales tax of around 6%.  I'd rather pay a one-time 6% sales tax than a recurring 2% wealth tax.

If that person was still an American citizen all those purchases you listed would be subject to Warren's wealth taxes. That's why Warren prescribed a wealth tax and not an income tax because the rich do hide their money in assets like art, land, real estate, and collectible cars. It's also not very hard to value these assets if they have any real value because the rich always insure these assets against theft, lost, or damage.

So what Warren is proposing is a massive team of auditors to go out every year and do a full audit of every millionaire's assets?  That alone is going to cost more than the wealth tax brings in lol.  Trump has been devaluing his property for decades and getting away with it.

Let's do some math.  Suppose I buy a $100M painting, pay a 6% sales tax of $6M, and can convince the auditors that the painting is only worth $60M and I overpaid for it for sentimental value.  Let's suppose, for simplicity, that the painting only increases at the rate of inflation so we can ignore any growth.  I'm avoiding 2% of $40M, or $0.8M, every single year.  In 8 years, it's a financially sound decision.  Spaced out over 20-30 years?  I'm rolling in it.  If you want to whine about growth, art grows 7.6% on average, so that's about 5% over inflation.  And since I'm not losing 2% every year, I get the full 5%.  What's Warren gonna do to stop any of this?

This is money that otherwise I would have used to purchase $100M worth of index funds, injecting tremendous capital into the economy.

[GP270watch]

Let's do some math.  Suppose I buy a $100M painting, pay a 6% sales tax of $6M, and can convince the auditors that the painting is only worth $60M and I overpaid for it for sentimental value.  

 Let's not because you don't understand the topic. If there is a recorded sale of $100m that is what the painting is worth. You would only reassess the value based on prior sales, comps, or insured value. If somebody wanted to under insure their possession that would make no sense. And the IRS would still use the value based on their criteria not on what some tax cheat did to dodge taxes.

 Your other replies are filled with too many logical or factual errors to justify a response.

 

[GeneralMacArthur]

Let's do some math.  Suppose I buy a $100M painting, pay a 6% sales tax of $6M, and can convince the auditors that the painting is only worth $60M and I overpaid for it for sentimental value.  

 Let's not because you don't understand the topic. If there is a recorded sale of $100m that is what the painting is worth. You would only reassess the value based on prior sales, comps, or insured value. If somebody wanted to under insure their possession that would make no sense. And the IRS would still use the value based on their criteria not on what some tax cheat did to dodge taxes.

 Your other replies are filled with too many logical or factual errors to justify a response.

 

Um, no.  There are plenty of factors that could conceivably go into a sale other than the actual value or something.  Or it could decline in value afterwards.  Unless you have a field expert, you have no way to audit this.  What if I bought a bitcoin for $20,000 when it was listed at $18,000, thinking it would go up?  And now it's worth $9000.  Is the value of that bitcoin 20K (what I paid for it), 18K (its market value at the time I bought it), 9K (its current market value), or 10K (what a market expert says it's worth, based on expected growth)?

[GP270watch]

 The painting for that year would be valued at your purchase price, every other year it would be taxed at the appraised value based on the IRS criteria. A crypto currency or stock would have a designated period like December 31st and the value that day would be the assigned value. Switzerland which has a wealth tax does something like this.

 So lets say the bulk of your fortune was ownership of 1 million shares of Company X and the share price was $60. You would owe $200,000 in wealth tax.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The painting for that year would be valued at your purchase price, every other year it would be taxed at the appraised value based on the IRS criteria. A crypto currency or stock would have a designated period like December 31st and the value that day would be the assigned value. Switzerland which has a wealth tax does something like this.

 So lets say the bulk of your fortune was ownership of 1 million shares of Company X and the share price was $60. You would owe $200,000 in wealth tax.

OK, so the IRS is going to come up with appraisal criteria for paintings?  Isn't it already complicated enough they have to do it for real estate to assess property taxes.  Now they are going to have to appraise EVERYTHING in order to properly calculate someone's wealth.

How about race horses?  In 2000, Fugalchi Pegasus sold for $70,000,000.  If I had $100M and spent $70M of that on Pegasus, but then he became infertile, what's my wealth, what do I owe?

It may seem like a silly example, but if you DON'T bother to assess the value, or include a race horse in my wealth calculations, suddenly the market for expensive horses will explode as the very wealthy look for a place to shelter their wealth and avoid the 2% annual tax.

And this could be true of literally any expensive thing.  If the government decides it doesn't know how to properly value {thing}, suddenly everyone will be buying {thing} they can park their wealth in.

But all this is kind of tangential to my main point, which is that Warren is misleading people by pretending this tax would be insubstantial.  The reason people would want to hide their money in a racehorse is because her wealth tax is going to HAMMER people's fortunes in the long run.

And I looked it up, apparently she does want to do 6% on wealth over $1B!  So in 20 years, Bill Gates will have lost $80B of his $110B fortune.  That is INSANE.

[izixs]

And I looked it up, apparently she does want to do 6% on wealth over $1B!  So in 20 years, Bill Gates will have lost $80B of his $110B fortune.  That is INSANE.

Do you not realize that what you call insane is actually seen by several folks hanging out in this thread (and many more out in the real world) as actually a good thing. Bringing an end to the preposterous existence of the ultra wealthy as a defined class of people is a good thing. They will never want on an individual level if this becomes a reality. None of their kids is likely to ever suffer the stings of poverty if it does either. And likely many generations down the line they'll still be benefiting in various ways from their ancestor's wealth. If not via direct inheritance then by the various levers of power a parent of that level of wealth can push to open doors for them that are shut for anyone else, even without realizing they're doing it.

So Bill Gates and company, they'll be fine. They don't need to worry about retirement under this wealth tax. Unless they suddenly figure out a way to live for a hundred thousand years or something absurd like that.

So... any argument trying to liken it to a retirement fund is absurd on face. Even before one factors in the means for which he is already stock pilling vast sums of wealth despite giving away tons of it for his own projects.

If you want to know the details of plans on how to avoid accidental promotion of tax shelter horse purchases, feel free to ask the Warren (or Sanders) campaigns what their plans are. I could speculate of course, but in general, if there exists a market for something, there tends to be ways to evaluate the cost of items in that market. Including ridiculously priced horses. Even if the horse becomes a gelding.

So... again, your argument is a little absurd.

So lets go to the unsaid argument that you hint at with the bit I quoted. You appear to be using all this nonsense as a means to argue for there existing individuals with absurd amounts of personal capital because reasons. That's the argument you're making once you cut out all the 'but mah fairness!' cries and attempts to distract with 'but what about this complicated but solvable problem, why don't you lay out every detail for me right now so I can ignore the central core of the issue entirely and nit pick about random people on the internet not being experts on horse breeding', there is this want of yours to defend billionaires as a class as a starting point.

Why? Why do you specifically want to defend their existence in our society?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Only in AmeriKKKa is a single person "only" having $30 billion considered insane.

Clown World isn't just a meme, folks.  We are living in it.  Our corporate overlords have brainwashed us for forty years into thinking this is normal.

[GP270watch]

 A wealth tax could possibly decrease fortunes but it's not likely. The confused poster Mac keeps thinking that the amount of money held by the wealthy will remain static, it won't, it will still grow faster than most of the wealth tax in most years. Another bonus of a wealth tax is stopping the rampant rate of inequality. Right now the richest 400 American families pay less in overall tax rate than the middle class does. Under this current scenario their wealth will just continue to grow astronomically. And the the middle class will continue to pay more of their income in taxes as has been the trend. Anybody defending this current system has their priorities all screwed up.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The painting for that year would be valued at your purchase price, every other year it would be taxed at the appraised value based on the IRS criteria. A crypto currency or stock would have a designated period like December 31st and the value that day would be the assigned value. Switzerland which has a wealth tax does something like this.

 So lets say the bulk of your fortune was ownership of 1 million shares of Company X and the share price was $60. You would owe $200,000 in wealth tax.

OK, so the IRS is going to come up with appraisal criteria for paintings?  Isn't it already complicated enough they have to do it for real estate to assess property taxes.  Now they are going to have to appraise EVERYTHING in order to properly calculate someone's wealth.

How about race horses?  In 2000, Fugalchi Pegasus sold for $70,000,000.  If I had $100M and spent $70M of that on Pegasus, but then he became infertile, what's my wealth, what do I owe?

It may seem like a silly example, but if you DON'T bother to assess the value, or include a race horse in my wealth calculations, suddenly the market for expensive horses will explode as the very wealthy look for a place to shelter their wealth and avoid the 2% annual tax.

And this could be true of literally any expensive thing.  If the government decides it doesn't know how to properly value {thing}, suddenly everyone will be buying {thing} they can park their wealth in.

But all this is kind of tangential to my main point, which is that Warren is misleading people by pretending this tax would be insubstantial.  The reason people would want to hide their money in a racehorse is because her wealth tax is going to HAMMER people's fortunes in the long run.

And I looked it up, apparently she does want to do 6% on wealth over $1B!  So in 20 years, Bill Gates will have lost $80B of his $110B fortune.  That is INSANE.

The number of people who own >$50,000,000 worth of racehorses or paintings is so small that it's not worth considering in a policy discussion.  The overwhelming majority of people who are this wealthy own almost all their wealth in equities or properties whose value is publicly available.  If there's someone out there who owns a Triple Crown Winner and no other significant wealth, I don't care whether or not he evades the tax.

Even if you somehow think that Bill Gates having only $30 billion is a hardship, this is only true if Gates made no additional income or return on his wealth over the next 20 years.  The vast majority of billionaires have seen their wealth increase at a rate much greater than 6% per year over the past few decades.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why do you guys, and Warren herself, always shift to this strawman argument that her critics (like me) are "defending billionaires" and "don't think $30 billion is enough money"?  It's absurd and pretty insulting.

Of course $30 billion is still a lot of money.  But that doesn't make it OK to straight up take the rest of his money.  If Bill Gates had $1 trillion, it wouldn't be OK to take $970 billion just because "$30 billion is still a lot of money."

And that's not defending "billionaires", that's defending "basic justice."  It is not justice to take all of someone's hard-earned wealth away from them just because, in your judgment, they still have enough left over.



What's funny is this conversation started with me complaining about how Warren, and posters in this thread, are trying to act like this is such a small, insignificant tax.  "It's only two cents!"  But now nobody wants to defend that.  Now it's "OK yeah it is an enormous tax, that would virtually eliminate most of billionaires' wealth, but that's OK because they'd still have some left over."

Warren is getting away with standing on the "it's only two cents" ground for now, because the primary is soft, but she won't be able to in the general.  She'll be pushed into the "billionaires shouldn't exist" ground that this tax actually lives on.  Do you think Warren will be able to make that case convincingly to the American people?  Republicans will just say "Warren wants to decide how much money someone is allowed to have, and take all the rest."

Most people find it unjust to take all of a billionaire's money.    Most people think it's elitist to tell someone they already have all the money they need.  This is what Biden has been criticizing Warren for.  All her policies ultimately boil down to "I know what's best for you and I'm going to force you to accept it."  In this case it's "hey Bill Gates, you only need $30 billion, I'm just gonna take the other $80"

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Most people find it unjust to take all of a billionaire's money.    

No one is suggesting taking -all- of a billionaire's money.   That's the strawman argument here.  The 6% wealth tax would only apply to wealth -over- $1 billion dollars.  Not all of it.  The billionaire is still going to be a billionaire.

Even if a 6% wealth tax applied to -every dollar- of a $110 billion fortune, it would take well over 200 year to reduce that below $1 billion (again assuming the billionaire made no additional money during that 200 years).

[GP270watch]

Most people find it unjust to take all of a billionaire's money.    Most people think it's elitist to tell someone they already have all the money they need. 

lolz

  Huge taxes on the rich are popular with both Democrats and Republican voters, you're delusional.

 Also the idea that having trilionaires while workers can't afford to go to school without crushing debt and have child care so they can go to work is elitist is so dumb I don't know what to say.