2% above $50MM, 3% above $1B.

They say it could raise $275B a year, no doubt assuming nobody changes their behavior.


Most of the twitter comments are saying it's too low.

Comments, in no particular order:

- apparently she considered going as low as 10MM. Seems to me if we had a wealth tax the threshold would be toyed with constantly like marginal rates now.

- seems to me as long as we have a Senate we won't have a wealth tax. But I've been wrong before

- it's not her worst idea, and I don't mean that as an offhand compliment. I mean, literally, other ideas of hers are worse.


- If they're going to look at taxing wealth, why not go after wealth that has never been taxed? How about capital gains at death, or at bequeathment to charities or trusts? Or at least no longer allowing stepping up of cost bases? Seems to be more justifiable from a fairness perspective and would certainly raise a lot more money. But it doesn't have a 'lets get those bastards' ring to it.

- I'll at least give Warren credit for pumping out bold policy proposals every month.


- Its a little creepy how much time she spends on punitive aspects of policy proposals that will never see the light of day. In her "give Wilbur Ross control of major US corporations" proposal, she had a section detailing how to punish firms who tried to take action to get under the $1B threshold. In this proposal she's detailed how to punish people who might try to evade her new tax. She or someone on her staff must really enjoy that aspect of it.

One other comment -

This will be popular with the base and I predict other presidential hopefuls will up the ante on the percentage or scope of this proposal. Possibly before the day is out.

Another comment - judging by the reactions I’ve read, this probably has constitutional issues.

But ‘fixing’ the capital gains loopholes wouldn’t.

Too wimpy. 70 percent tax on earnings over $10M. Nobody makes that kind of money without the support of infrastructure paid for with tax dollars. By the time someone has earned that much, it's time to give back.

This was discussed before, but once more I'm confused.

Conflating wealth ("net worth") and income. The IRS definitions and ramifications are altogether different. Jon is referring to wealth, Pique (at least) is referring to income. (NO way to tax annual incomes in the neighborhood of millions plus! Just thinking of the manipulations, if nothing else is mind boggling...)

Personally, I've been holding out on selling farmland passed on to me in a complex family arrangement (which massively cheated sons and me). My purpose? To allow troubled son to inherit it without capital gains. I will be very P-O'ed if they change it right around when I'm going to the other side, after doing without very needed funds so as to help him.

Money that might well have lengthened my days if I'd had it at my disposal to support myself and meet medical needs!

The resetting of the land's basis would make a big difference to that son so I'm doing without.

Naturally, this has nothing to do with what's overall best for our society but I'm still upset thinking of the consequences that might ensue for us! That's the way it always is, of course. There are losers and winners when financial laws change (not all as exceptional as those resulting from the last Tax Bill. Still burning. ).

Amanda, do you mean inheritance taxes? Have you thought of taking out a life insurance policy that would cover the inheritance taxes? Or if the farmland qualifies, you can also sell a conservation easement on the property, which could then cover the taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Another comment - judging by the reactions I’ve read, this probably has constitutional issues.

Really? Do tell. Property taxes have been around forever, as have exclusions and waivers for various categories of people. Do you have any source material to which you can point, so I can understand whether people who are claiming there is a constitutional issue are differentiating property taxes somehow? (For those who do not know, property taxes do not have to be limited to real estate; some jurisdictions already impose a property tax on things like cars.)

Is this something like an intangibles tax?

The Warren proposal on "wealth" sounds like it would tax all wealth, including cash, but my dim recollection of the time period when Florida had an intangibles tax was that it was like a property tax for investments like stocks. If I'm remembering that correctly, an intangibles tax might be slightly easier to sell than a tax on total wealth, but only slightly. I do remember that it had a threshold that only captured people with significant holdings, but the threshold was far, far lower than $50MM, perhaps $1M.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Another comment - judging by the reactions I’ve read, this probably has constitutional issues.

Really? Do tell. Property taxes have been around forever, as have exclusions and waivers for various categories of people. Do you have any source material to which you can point, so I can understand whether people who are claiming there is a constitutional issue are differentiating property taxes somehow? (For those who do not know, property taxes do not have to be limited to real estate; some jurisdictions already impose a property tax on things like cars.)

The constitutional limitation is on the federal government. Any direct tax much be proportioned among the states per the census enumeration. The sixteenth amendment provided an explicit exception to that requirement but only for income taxes.

Can’t say I’m familiar with the case law on this other than a memory that the 16th amendment came about because in the late 19th century the Supreme Court ruled income tax to be unconstitutional.

Source material: Article 1, sec 2; Article 1, section 9; 16th amendment


I have, over the years, seen proposals to try to structure a wealth tax as an income tax to get around this stricture, like having wealth-based income tax brackets. Not sure how solid these proposals are, and obviously I’m no expert in this.

I'm familiar with the Constitution. I meant, source material related to the claim ... people saying it.

When you say "judging by the reactions I've read", and I ask about those, and you cite me to the Constitution, it almost sounds like you're pulling a Donald Trump with more erudite language than "many people are saying". I'm sure that's not the case, so perhaps you could actually cite the people who you have read who are saying it.

You can dislike Elizabeth Warren and think that her policy ideas are folly, but you cannot say that the woman is ill-prepared. I'm sure, if she's bandying the idea about, she's got some solid background research on why it could work. So, please show me the analysis that you've read saying it doesn't.

It seems every time we disagree about something these days you whip out a Donald Trump comparison.

Re her preparedness - extra-constitutionality is a recurring feature in her proposals. That's not a flip comment, it is basic to her philosophy. Even the CFPB was specifically designed to avoid or limit accountability to congress and the President. (Indeed part of that design has failed constitutional muster and other parts almost certainly shall do so in the new court.)


Its one of the main reasons I consider her dangerous - again, not a flip comment but a very deliberately chosen adjective. She looks at democratic accountability and sees potential for corruption, and her conclusion is that such accountability is to be avoided through institutional design. (obviously we're well off of wealth tax territory here)


So I have little sympathy for your implicit argument that she proposed it, ergo it must be constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
It seems every time we disagree about something these days you whip out a Donald Trump comparison.

I'm not aware we are disagreeing. I said, "Do you have any source material to which you can point, so I can understand whether people who are claiming there is a constitutional issue are differentiating property taxes somehow?" That might suggest that I haven't reached a conclusion here yet. If I haven't reached a conclusion, then we cannot be disagreeing, can we?

You said the equivalent of "many people are saying", I asked you to cite those people, and you've dodged. Twice.

If you don't want to be accused of acting like Trump, don't act like Trump. Or are you claiming that saying "judging by the reactions I've read", and then ignoring questions about where you might have seen those reactions, is not Trump-like?

quote:

Re her preparedness - extra-constitutionality is a recurring feature in her proposals. That's not a flip comment, it is basic to her philosophy. Even the CFPB was specifically designed to avoid or limit accountability to congress and the President. (Indeed part of that design has failed constitutional muster and other parts almost certainly shall do so in the new court.)


Its one of the main reasons I consider her dangerous - again, not a flip comment but a very deliberately chosen adjective. She looks at democratic accountability and sees potential for corruption, and her conclusion is that such accountability is to be avoided through institutional design. (obviously we're well off of wealth tax territory here)


So I have little sympathy for your implicit argument that she proposed it, ergo it must be constitutional.

I didn't say it must be constitutional. I said that "she's got some solid background research on why it could work", which is very different (particularly the word "could"). Go construct yourself a different straw man.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
I said, "Do you have any source material to which you can point, so I can understand whether people who are claiming there is a constitutional issue are differentiating property taxes somehow?"

I thought the reference to Article 1 would have put that concern to rest. It’s a limitation on the Federal government, the property taxes you pay are local.

And given that, the continued requests for links don’t really seem to be in good faith. You are more than capable of searching for arguments pro and con.

To prevent an oligarchy.

Jefferson wrote to Madison:
"[T]he solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands…I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured."