Study: Warren Wealth Tax Would Bring in Less Than Promised

[erpowers]

A new study suggests Massachusetts Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax would bring in as much as $2.7 trillion in 10 years – though the plan would also restrict economic growth in future decades and fall roughly $1 trillion shy of the Warren campaign's revenue projections.

Snip

But that number is well shy of the $3.75 trillion figure that Warren's campaign has floated. Penn Wharton also projects that, by 2050, Warren's wealth tax would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.9% in a best-case scenario and 2.1% worst-case – depending on how the revenues it generates are spent.

Snip

"I'm skeptical the wealth tax will generate the same amount of revenue after considering all her plans together," Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told Reuters last month.

In a series of tweets Thursday, Bharat Ramamurti, Warren's deputy policy director for economic policy, pointed to Penn Wharton's decision not to include Warren's planned anti-evasion measures in its calculations. He called the analysis "meaningless" and suggested the methodology didn't factor in the expected benefits associated with the full scope of her economic agenda, including the impacts of universal child care and early education policies.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-12/elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-would-bring-in-less-than-promised

[George II]

1. That's 28% lower than expected.

[Hoyt]

2. That's OK, she can go back to her policy folks and load businesses with even more taxes

so that she can claim healthcare will be "free." Of course, she'll also need to do that with childcare, college debt relief, free college, etc. Then, she'll have to convince us that taxing corporations doesn't come out of our own pockets.

[SWBTATTReg]

3. This isn't a Warren issue...every new tax or addl revenue laws has never met expectations of

lawmakers anticipation. This is true in most jurisdictions (state, local, federal)...with any new tax or revenue generating proposal, new methods pop up to bypass or sidestep efforts to gather more revenues/taxes.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Wharton School of Business is down on the wealth tax?

Nah.

Two giant holes in the study as indicated.

This is the second time they've done this. The biggest problem Wharton and its agenda-pushers have with the tax is its enduring popularity:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LeftTurn3623]

5. ok then she can increase the percent

problem solved .... next

[Hoyt]

7. Assuming the study is correct, that might be an even bigger mistake --

From the OP's article -- "Warren's wealth tax would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.9% in a best-case scenario and 2.1% worst-case – depending on how the revenues it generates are spent."

A little bit of research indicates that a 1% reduction in the GDP roughly translates 1.9 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate.

So, I'm not so sure increasing the wealth tax is a wise move, unless you just want to make folks feel better for a year or so until the crud hits the fan.

[maxsolomon]

6. Since it will never get past a Senate filibuster, what the fuck ever.

It's ASPIRATIONAL, Mark Zandi.

[The Mouth]

8. And then rachet down the amount subjected to it

Remember, the income tax originally was sold as only applying to the top 10 percent or so.

Same thing will happen with the wealth tax, 10-15 years from now, anyone who isn't deep in debt will be paying it.

[Gothmog]

9. Who is surprised by this?