Warren is a hypocrite. Here's why. Her personal wealth is at $10-20M, so she starts her wealth tax at $50M... why not $10M? Much of her wealth was made flipping houses, and moonlighting as an expert in bankruptcy court (LTV, Fairchild, Dow, etc.) while a professor at Harvard. She was a Republican till 1996, but now we are to believe her bonafides as a bigger social Democrat than Sanders? All because of one tax? Despite that, I'll still vote for her, if she's the Dem nominee. I think she wants to buy your vote with someone else's money. I also think, however well guided, her MC4A plan is vastly more expensive (read middle class tax hikes) than she's saying. It's also presently politically DOA in Congress, and in Dubuque. Americans still want a choice in their healthcare. Re: her wealth tax, does anyone really think in era where 60 American multinationals pay no income tax, the wealthy won't use the same tactics to avoid it? Just tax the ultra wealthy's income more. Sherrod Brown's 10% surtax on incomes over $2M does that. It just won't fund MC4A. The single biggest wealth inequality issue facing America is the missing 36% corporate income tax used to be of the Federal budget. Now, it's just 6%. The second is our $1T+ military which no 'progressive' really wants to spend much less on. If you want be like Denmark, drop total military spending down to $300B. That $700B savings will fund a lot of health care, etc. without raising taxes.
17
I am a middle class senior. My fear of Warren is her medicare for all. I do not fear losing my private insurance, though I really want to keep it, but her plan will never pass, I fear her Medicare for all is going to loose her the election. I was what gave Dems the midterm win.
She will need to explain to me why she opposes building on the ACA. That one is here, millions of people are covered by it and it could be expanded to be free for the most poor.
If that does not pass votes, much less her Med4all will.
11
When you haggle over something, do you start with where you want to end up, or do you pick something above that so when you negotiate you have some wiggle room and you stand a good chance of actually getting everything you want?
19
@ John Wilson
I too would vote for ANYONE to rid us of Trump. But, look. how many times in the past half century have Democrats won the presidency by running a "moderate, centrist, electable" candidate? Jimmy Carter, I guess. Otherwise we have won ONLY with charismatic no-hopers. I am old enough to remember that JFK's Catholicism was supposed to be a death sentence. Bill Clinton? Who'd bet on a barely known governor from a small Southern state? And Barack Obama? My, oh my, he's BLACK!
Perhaps this time is different, and the "socialist" label really would prove fatal; but each time in the past, CHARISMA overcame "disqualifications."
22
Class warfare and eating the rich? What a refreshing and progressive stance on the economy! Weaponizing democracy to blatantly steal from the rich. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
A lot of people on the left want extreme changes, but the truth is ham fisted attempts to "fix" inequality will backfire one way or another. We'll find out the consequences of throwing away incremental gains so we can gamble with the American livelyhoods soon enough I suppose.
9
Class warfare and eating the rich? What a refreshing and progressive stance on the economy! Weaponizing democracy to blatantly steal from the rich. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
A lot of people on the left want extreme changes, but the truth is ham fisted attempts to "fix" inequality will backfire one way or another. We'll find out the consequences of throwing away incremental gains so we can gamble with the American livelyhoods soon enough I suppose.
5
A weird thing I just discovered is that this wealth tax idea apparently started with Donald Trump . . .
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html
8
What get a billionaire to step up and become an activist?
a) Global warming and impending extinction events?
b) Attacks on democracy and the Rule of Law?
c) Universal healthcare for citizens and opiate abuse?
d) A threatened marginal tax increase so they pay what their parent's paid in previous generations, like the 1960's.
7
The US National Debt is now north of $23 trillion dollars. ( refer to https://www.usdebtclock.org ). One third of a trillion dollars from billionaires is not really going to scratch the surface.
The Warren doctrine will result in billionaire migration to low tax economies and the forced sale of stocks in US companies to foreign interests, a decline in the US stock market capitalisation and less money available for innovation.
Your manufacturing is already offshore creating billionaires in China. This loss of economic activity and value creation is the root cause problem confronting America.
If the USA exports its remaining wealth, then you will find yourselves up the creek without any paddles - a bunch of poor tennant in a country owned by Chinese and oil rich Arabs.
All the innovation will be done offshore and owned by foreigners.
Socialism always fails when it runs out of other people's money.
The best pathway forward is constitutional reform to reduce the ability of big money to buy elections.
The US tax system should be simplified to have progressive income tax tiers with few if any exemptions or deductions and be such that the top personal, trust and company tax rates are closely aligned to eliminate benefits from structuring.
Consumption should be taxed by a comprehensive goods and services tax.
In the places the billionaires will migrate to, there is no capital gains tax at all (unless you are trading in assets for profit).
9
Warren (and Sanders) thrive for class warfare. That's why Warren advocates taxes for the 1% even though she knew full well that it's far from sufficient to pay for all the expansive government programs (M4A, for one) on her agenda. Why? Because it's far easier to rile the 99% (or at least the bottom 50%) against those one-percenters.
Discaimer: I'm not the 1%, I'm arguably in the top-10%. I'm far from earnings the tens (or hundreds) of millions every year. I'm a small business owner, I pay maximum taxes (AMT), I hire people and pay far above minimum wages. In fact, I'm also working a second job to bootstrap and keep the lights on in my business. The way that it's going, those true 1% will always have ways and means to move their capital around the world to no-tax regimes. It's those of us who toll in this country, who some might consider "rich" but we're quite far from it. I routinely work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, by the way.
And I have a word to this reporter (or people like him): Yes, I'm afraid of Warren too, but definitely not for the reasons that he's listed. I'll tell you this too, that if Sanders or Warren are to win, I'll close shop because it'll not worth the effort.
Here are a few kickers that would have gone a long way: (1) Public options have been far superior alternative. (2) Raise capital gains taxes and close those goddamn loopholes like carry-interests. (3) Roll back Trump's tax cut. (4) Trim Pentagon budget (that has been expanding every year).
9
I am not a billionaire but I'm still very afraid of Warren. Not of her policies, of course, but that she will win the nomination but then be unable to defeat Trump because of her policies.
In the current climate of the existential threat to the Republic nothing else really matters. The progressive agenda will have to wait for another day.
6
That’s what they always say. A progressive can’t win, we have to nominate a moderate. We did that last time, and we lost. It’s time to try something else. Remember, they said Trump couldn’t win in 2016 either.
11
@Smilodon7 Understood. Trump's win upended a lot of my understanding of what voters believed in. The Republican party quickly jettisoned multiple "values" they supposedly long held dear.
But Hillary had too much baggage and was successfully vilified by the right for over 20+ years. So I'm not certain it was because she wasn't progressive enough.
5
The times have definitely changed, too. This is not going to be a normal election.
2
There is a different reason, however, to excite caution about a Warren candidacy, viz. the just published academic analysis described in The Economist, "Poorly educated voters hold the keys to the White House." If this analysis is correct, and the voter sentiments described in it are durable, it would be suicide for us Democrats to nominate Warren. And I say this as a Warren supporter.
1
Senator Warren (and Senator Sanders, and other populists) make promises that they know (or should know) they cannot keep. Tax changes require congressional approval, and this simply will not happen.
The net results of electing any populist will be further disenchantment and disgust with the federal government.
2
You are correct the voters will decide. And there isn’t a chance that America will choose Warren. I work in Manufacturing and the staff of direct labor do not despise the rich. They never expected to be so but hope they might. Those who support Warren expected to maybe be so and realize they won’t. Envy and greed are not only the priveledge of the rich.
4
Independents decide elections. They are, by definition, independent: they don't like being told what to do, particularly by their govt (they tolerate a boss who can fire them)
The question is, will Republicans campaign against Warren as controlling, taking away your money and independence, acting like she knows more than you about what's best for you? Thus taking away independent votes?
Um, they've already started.
3
Is there any good reason why multi-billionaires and corporate CEOs making millions and tens of million dollars a year should not pay more in taxes to help create a more equitable and prosperous democratic society? I can't think of one. Can you?
13
I cringe when I hear folks say that Bill Gates has to pay more taxes. The man changed the world. His company’s outstanding shares has a market value of over $1trillion. That’s money in our retirement plans thanks to him. Does he own 50% of that? 30%? 10? No, he owns less than 5% of the company he founded. Sanders and Warren feel it’s too much and they can’t wait to take it from him. He has done more for the world, created more wealth, then they could ever hope to do.
12
It's all about values!
If you put your Magic 3; Money, Sweat & Time, where your best interests are, you don't suffer the consequences that presently befall most people of the world.
The things that these billionaires all did was find a way that produced more income, less expense & then put the Magic 3 to the max at that way. They valued greater returns than the ones who threw their Magic 3 after non-producing/low-producing items.
Like it or not, the govt has to take the outlook of these billionaires. Where the billionaires are only interested in continuously filling their pockets, the govt has to think of ways to continuously fill the public overall good. The best way is to build great infrastructure, beginning with great healthcare&housing then great education for all & in the end, great protections against things that erode the public's goodwill.
As the US has acceded to the greed of the wealthy, at the leadership of the GOP, all the great infrastructure has eroded. The wealthy only sees giving back some as robbing them, they can't see that they got all that as a result of using public good & then taking from those who needed the most.
But I also want to be fair, why should a person who sweats 7 days a week, continuously sharpen their skills & invests to the max for the long term have to carry the load of a person who refuses to sweat 2 days a week & wants only to sit on the couch watching the ignorance tube? U can get a fight w many by asking them to fix their homes.
1
I know an awful lot of people who work full time, or work the equivalent in multiple part time jobs, who still cannot make ends meet. I don’t think there’s that many people that just want to sit on the couch. People are angry because they are working, but they aren’t getting paid decently for it.
6
I am going to vote for Warren because it is time to have a true Native American for President.
7
Historically, the Democratic party has often betrayed its left wing ; think Eugene McCarthy in 1968. Think George McGovern in 1972. Think Howard Dean in 2004. The introduction of Michael Bloomberg into the 2020 Democratic primary is part of the standard Democratic party playbook. In truth, this party recoils from any meaningful progressive candidate. The betrayal of the left is standard operating procedure for America’s most timid political party. If we had a parliamentary system of governance, with proportional representation, the charade of the so-called American left would be liberated. With proportional voting, a true left could emerge from the ashes of a faux progressive Democratic party. Until then, left leaning acolytes will continue to be stabbed in the back by the high priests of the Democratic party.
Jamelle Bouie asks an important question: Who’s Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?
Who’s afraid of Elizabeth Warren?
Not I, say hard-working farm workers who face trade issues beyond their control
Not I, say labor-intensive construction workers
Not I, say the multitudes who clean buildings at night and do other dirty jobs
Not I, say the taxi and long distance truck drivers
Not I, say nurses, support staff who run our hospitals, and social workers,
Not I, say all those who teach at every age level starting at birth.
Not I, say all the poor mothers who are left alone with children to raise
Not I, say all those who have learned about the real damage to our democracy
Who’s afraid of billionaires? Everyone who recognizes the greed that has warped their minds and souls to blindness. Afraid? Yes. Power in the wrong hands makes us afraid. But an election is coming. Vote for the brightest, most experienced, most committed candidate: Elizabeth Warren.
11
Most Billionaires seem to want over-representation with under-taxation.
And they seem to think they've earned such advantage and treatment.
10
Among those most concerned by the prospect of an Elizabeth Warren presidency are Americans who ask and attempt to honestly answer this age-old question: What could possibly go wrong?
In the case of Senator Warren's very far-reaching plans, I think it's clear what the answer is: Quite a lot, actually.
Blithe suggestions that the inevitable messes created by plans gone badly wrong will simply be cleaned-up as a matter of course – and that we'll all still be better off than we were before – are already being trotted-out to steady the nerves of those asking the obvious questions. Believing that line of sales promotion is naive and will only lead to disappointment.
It's my belief that the ups-and-downs of the healthcare debates, plans, and legislation of the past three decades have shown that America continues to be a country populated by citizens who generally desire incremental change rather than sweeping transformations.
3
Better that they should have asked this before the last election.
4
Politics is the art of the possible but we must be able to compromise to get things done. The new generation desires and will vote for new leaders to create a more just society.
2
It is at least for me interesting how very upper monied class is starting to feel abused by actually contributing to society as a whole. They have contributed but Republicans have loaded the deck of cards so much in their favor that it becomes ridiculous? Many people have said this in essence, "I like taxes. They buy me civilization". They also buy fairness and humility that the society from which you made your fortune needs a payback which so far is not coming. It can be health care, infrastructure, or whatever, but they money made came from the backs of all the rest of us.
5
Why is Warren any different than an old time politician who promises the electorate everything and delivers nothing? That's been the chief complaint from the democratic people for a long time. Isn't it worse to try and utterly transform the economy in one fell swoop, fail and make the issue toxic for decades? Isn't it better to have a long term goal of tax fairness, changing energy system, and revamping health care piece by piece, legislative session by session? It's not only better it's the only way unless you have a Depression like emergency where unemployment is 25% and multiple years of negative growth and you elect a President who has tremendous powers because of the crisis like FDR. The electorate is not responding as if it feels in that sort of crisis. And it could get to that point, no question. But, at this point, throwing Warren out there would not only defeat the Democrats but would defeat some of these worthwhile goals for quite a while.
4
@Sid (who is suggesting caution on paper)
So hypothetically you suggest a new Obama or Clinton to appear and run against Trump. Well, that already happened with Hillary and she managed to lose it!
Calculated risks need to be taken. Warren or Sanders can indeed beat Trump who is a criminal and a liar who has not even touched the Healthcare debacle let alone the Climate Crisis, two fundamental threats to our nation and to humanity respectively.
I don't understand what are you saying beyond advising people to act like cowards. We did not became the nation we are by not taking risks.
If we do not do the right thing, the analogy to the frog in the water where the temperature goes up gradually will apply. We already lost a lot incrementally. Soon we will loose all. It happened before in history. Ask Germans and Italians.
7
Germans and Italians are also far better educated. They take care of themselves better, they aren’t drug addled, overweight etc. As far as the Germans, few countries have as highly trained a workforce than they do. The trades are respected and their technical prowess allows them to lead in machinery, tooling infrastructure and applied sciences.
Their education system puts ours to shame.
3
Why not simply take smaller steps?
Everyone seems to forget that they live in a country where 60 million Americans are in lock step with Trump despite all his nonsense.
You simply are not going to go from this to Warren’s plans in one election. At best, you’ll shoehorn something that will create so much anger that it will be violently reversed in the next mid-term.
Our goal should be to get Trump out. That’s it! The apathy of 2016 resulted in this bargain.
Get the country back on track and off this slide to totalitarianism. Build your case. Then make an effort to implement something with broader consensus in 2022 or 2024.
We are just trying to stop bailing water right now.
1
I was talking about 1930s :-). But point well taken
2
We know she won’t be the nominee, so there’s nothing to be afraid of.
4
People said that about Trump too.
1
Bill Gates: "“I’ve paid over $10 billion in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes..."
Thesaurus for "whiner" - please refer to the above.
8
Thank you, Jamelle!
1
Swiss bankers must be salivating !
1
Let them salivate. If the US wants they will go under and back to their cows and goats in no time.
5
"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt
I for one would welcome Madam President Elizabeth Warren.
4
There are probably as many delusional people out there who think that Trump is "one of them", as think that Bloomberg is "one of them". Both men are completely detached, crude, misogynistic, crony capitalists; one just happens to have enough sense not to be a be an absolute jerk in public.
4
The wealth tax is only 3%; Bill Gates fortune is about $108B-it will leave him with $105B. He makes about $16B a year without moving a finger. Let’s not forget we are in the primaries.
6
As I'm sure has been said and probably more articulately.. Mr. Bouie, keep stroking your ego, celebrating your wokeness and generally feeling great about yourself. Here's four more years of Trump.
1
States With the Most Billionaires: more than 40 percent of the nation’s ultra-rich live in California or New York. I wonder what happens to the states below when Liz and Bernie implement their proposed programs. Hello Florida!
15. New York: 6.15 percent. (Cost of living: 35.9 percent above national average,
14. Colorado: 6.47 percent. (Cost of living: .8 percent above national average.)
13. Washington: 6.51 percent. (Cost of living: 7.9 percent above national average.)
12. Minnesota: 6.57 percent. (Cost of living: 4.3 percent below national average.)
11. District of Columbia: 6.57 percent. (Cost of living: 55.7 percent above national average.)
10. California: 6.61 percent. (Cost of living: 33 percent above national average.)
9. Delaware: 6.62 percent. (Cost of living: .6 percent below national average.)
8. Virginia: 6.98 percent. (Cost of living: 1.7 percent below national average.)
7. New Hampshire: 7.36 percent. (Cost of living: 14.7 percent above national average.)
6. Massachusetts: 7.41 percent. (Cost of living: 20.7 percent above national average.)
5. Alaska: 7.50 percent. (Cost of living: 18.5 percent above national average.)
4. Hawaii: 7.57 percent. (Cost of living: 26.9 percent above national average.)
3. Connecticut: 7.75 percent. (Cost of living: 18.5 percent above national average.)
2. New Jersey: 7.86 percent. (Cost of living: 13.4 percent above national average.)
1. Maryland: 7.87 percent. (Cost of living: 21.4 percent above national average.)
I suspect these billionaires know that, even if elected, Warren's plans have little to no chance of passing the Senate. I think, pathetically, their real fear is having this conversation about rising inequality amplified and explained to the American voter. Billionaires, surrounded only by sycophants, and hearing nothing except about how great they are and how we all should be thankful for their existence, have the thinnest of skin when it comes to public criticism. That's why we are getting these petulant outbursts, which actually do nothing but put on full display how petty and self-interested most of these people are at their core.
3
The more they hate her, the more I believe she's on the right path.
6
Not going to read the article, cuz I'm pretty sure its dumb after reading other op-eds from Jamelle. But, I will say, Elizabeth Warren should be afraid of Elizabeth Warren. I'll vote for whoever is against Trump, but I do not like her chances, like at all. She's a dream candidate for Trump.
5
Anyone who cares about liberty and common sense should be afraid of Warren and Sanders.
6
Who is afraid of Warren?
People who want to perpetuate inequality of wealth and income.
People who don’t want their fellow men and women not to be able to pursue happiness.
People who want to perpetuate their status quo for themselves and their descendants.
Fascists and crypto-fascists.
People who think John Rawls was the anti-Christ.
People who have no clue about who John Rawls was and never heard of or read A Theory of Justice.
People who don’t want to be indifferent to who they wake up as when they go to sleep at night (Hint to the previous two points).
Vote for Bernie and/or Warren. They are the future I want for my children and loved ones.
6
Sheeple: Warren can win. It's the times, Mondale ran against the Ray Gun "Government is the problem" ray, McGovern the culture war tsunami. There's nothing like that today, the times are with us, people slipping off the middle class cliff will reach for a helping hand. She can lead all of us suffering under this poison cloud out. Drop your fears and jump in to the fight.
4
"And if those voters decide to nominate Warren or Sanders instead of a traditional moderate — and if either of those candidates beats Trump, as is very possible — then the billionaires will have to learn to live with the people’s will."
The nerve to write something of this nature. Especially in the United States. I'm about as far from billionaire status as one can be. But the taking of someones money to the tune Warren is calling for is absolute theft by government.
These billionaire's earned their money admittedly in a substantially different manner than most of us. But if it was legally earned what gives the government the right to take most of it once the threshold is hit? Warren's concepts are nothing more than theft. An absolute and total disgrace!!
3
@Billy,
There are people who believe socialism/communism can work this time around. It’s a legitimate theory that’s never been proven in practice.
They want to try it. If you take 50 percent of ones wealth, why not take it all for the public good.
Regardless, many are misdiagnosing the problem. The problem being that too many Americans lack marketable skills. Shortages of engineers, electricians, mechanics, scientists....but plenty of fast food workers and manual assemblers.
1
Narodnaya Volya! 'Tis a marvelous thing, this "People's will." Marvelous, that is, except in the eyes of anyone who's given it a half-second's thought. George Mason likened presidential election via popular vote to referring "a trial of colors to a blind man." Bouie fears the white mob, as well he should. In the South, for centuries, the "People's will" meant abasement of blacks.
Today, Bouie sees that ochlocracy would likely empower politicians to enact policies that, he mistakenly thinks, would right the wrongs of the past and create a more egalitarian distribution of resources, which he imagines a great thing. In Bouie's eyes, though he'd deny it with bosh about class solidarity, nonwhite mobs are to be celebrated; white mobs, feared.
Gouverner Morris stood on a balcony in 1774, watching a crowd below. "This cannot be. The mob begin to think and reason. Poor reptiles! it is with them a vernal morning; they are struggling to cast off their winter's slough, they bask in the sunshine, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon it." If the disputes with Great Britain continued, he wrote, "we shall be under the dominion of a riotous mob."
The anti-elitism rife on the academic and activist Left is a parallel of right-wing talk radio's anti-elitism. Bouie equates rejection of Revolution with defense of something he terms the status quo, whatever that means in a dynamic system. But a Warrenian revolution, should it stifle dynamism, would be retrogressive. Merriam-Webster: reform.
Not Tulsi or Amy!
Probably Joe and Bernie.
If 2016 proved anything, it's that nobody in the NYT comment section, nor the supposed experts on whose OP-eds they are commenting, knows what the heck is "electable" anymore. Unless you are Michael Moore, or one of the handful of others who accurately predicted Trump's victory, shut up with the word "electable" already!
2
Who has billion dollars in these 1200+ commenters? And you are worried about Elizabeth Warren?
3
The billionaires will always find ways to take care of themselves. The people who really need to be worried about a Warren presidency are the middle class. Those of us stupid enough to play by the rules. We have good jobs, a home, a 401k. We work hard for everything we have. We have paid our student loans and are helping our children with theirs.
All we really want is to be left alone. Warren will decimate families like mine. Her tax policy alone will hit the middle class the hardest.
4
The wealth tax will not hit the middle class at all.
2
What this analysis misses is the changes a future billionaire or even future holder of a business that earns $1.5 million a year before taxes would have made in their careers, investments, domiciles, and other economic behaviors if the wealth tax existed 25 years ago.
Create a 10-person or a 90,000-employee business. I agree we need higher taxes but Warren is proposing revolutionary changes that will tank the economy!
2
The wealthy do not like democracy.
One person, one vote is actually very threatening to the wealthy.....unless of course you build a system whereby votes, media coverage and endorsements are for sale.
4
Of the more than 1200 comments on Mr. Bouie’s article, most seem in favor of Senator Warren’s candidacy. However, even if all were pro Warren, that is not enough to win an election. Nor should anyone be convinced that those 1200 are a representative sample of the tens of millions who will be casting their votes next November. What is more, I wonder just how many who wrote those comments voted for Trump in the last election. (I’m guessing not many.)
I am in complete agreement that it is important to take steps to redistribute wealth in this country and ensure that a “bigger piece of the pie” is diverted to those who are most in need. Further, I believe very few people would argue with such a conclusion.
On the other hand, I worry that many will see an attempt to correct such inequities in one fell swoop as being revolutionary and such policies as too extreme. As a consequence, many may choose not to vote for such a candidate………which would be a disaster.
Every person in this country who believes Trump must not, under any circumstances, be reelected, should ask themselves who is most likely to beat him at the polls next November. Personally, I think it is preferable to nominate someone whose ideas for change are evolutionary and win the election, rather than someone whose ideas are revolutionary and lose it.
Once in office, many things are possible. On the other hand, one who loses (no matter how utopian their visions) will accomplish nothing.
@Sid
So hypothetically you suggest a new Obama or Clinton to appear and run against Trump. Well, that already happened with Hillary and she managed to lose it!
Calculated risks need to be taken. Warren or Sanders can indeed beat Trump who is a criminal and a liar who has not even touched the Healthcare debacle let alone the Climate Crisis, two fundamental threats to our nation and to humanity respectively.
I don't understand what are you saying beyond advising people to act like cowards. We did not became the nation we are by not taking risks.
If we do not do the right thing, the analogy to the frog in the water where the temperature goes up gradually will apply. We already lost a lot incrementally. Soon we will loose all. It happened before in history. Ask Germans and Italians.
1
@Blunt
If the analogy of the frog in the water where "the temperature goes up gradually" is meant as an example of the fallacy of moderation (or gradualism), then I suppose the frog who is thrown into a pot of boiling water would be the "desirable" counterexample. Of course, I think both examples are silly as they relate to the topic under consideration.
As for Hillary losing it: she actually won the popular vote by almost 3 million and if the electoral college worked as Alexander Hamilton envisioned it in Federalist No. 68, she would be President.
Of course, if Warren does get the nomination and does win the election, I'll be very happy. But if that comes to pass, I doubt she will get very many of her policies through Congress in the form in which she has stated them.
It was meant to say that we have been hoodwinked in small steps until now and we are about to boil. If a frog was thrown in boiling water it would at least be obvious to the other frogs what is at stake.
1
According to Prof. Dr. Gabriel Zucman, Ph.D., economist at Berkeley who advises Senator Warren:
The US, 1950-1980
* Average top individual income tax rate: 80%
* Average top estate tax rate: 76%
* Average corporate tax rate: 50%
* Average growth rate of GDP per adult: 2.2%
The US, 1990-2020
* Average top individual rate: 37%
* estate: 47%
* corporate: 34%
* growth: 1.3%
Writing about billionaires: "They want assurance that the Democratic nominee won’t be too disruptive." Despite what some billionaires are saying, lower taxes on the rich, not higher taxes, are disruptive. Vote Warren.
8
@Greg Maguire, Ph.D. Good thing you decided not to document the effective tax rate.
@Greg Maguire, Ph.D.
Even many of our fellow Ph.D.s don't think clearly and with such clear numbers. Ideology and the villainous American rhetoric ruined the part of the nation's brains. They are not even capable of looking at the quantum of corporate tax reduction in the trillions over time as an amount which could be used to improve the neediest of the nation.
Saez, Piketty and Zucman are heroes that deserve not only the Nobel prize but sainthood as well. Unfortunately very few people bother with rationality and actual data analysis.
2
What bothered me the most is that the author dismisses any validate ground on which people disagree with Warren's policy. First, to characterize them as being "afraid" of Warren is uncalled for. In addition, there are many middle class people like me who disagree with Warren's approach to solve our nation's problems. The author again attempts to discredit critics of Warren by mislabelling them as only a few billionaires. He fails to acknowledge that many American voters, not billionaires, do not like her policies.
5
It is easy to promise large groups of people that they will be better off if we just squeeze some small minority and redistribute from them to the larger majority. Some have been doing this by scapegoating immigrants and Warren is doing this by scapegoating billionaires. If you want my vote, you need to have something better in mind.
There are some people who do not deserve to be wealthy as they have gotten there by being drug dealers, frausters, monopolists, or expropriators of other people's property (that includes some of the internet billionaires who simple steel our personal information and sell it). But there are many other wealthy individuals who worked hard, took risks, innovated, created jobs and saved and reinvested over long periods of time.
We need the latter as wealth does not simply create itself. There are plenty of areas where we need new ideas including climate change... Government is not necessarily very good at finding new ideas, or at taking risks.
4
The wealthy will still be wealthy. We are talking about a few percentage points here, not confiscating everything they own.
2
I'm in the 1% and I'm for Warren 100%. But even if I was not for Warren, I'm in a very small minority and the billionaires are even in a smaller minority.
So that 99% better get out and vote in 2020! Whomever the Democratic candidate may turn out to be, he or she has to win by a landslide in order to overcome the gerrymandering, voter suppression, and voting machine manipulation that only money can buy.
4
@Diane Stop with the voter suppression nonsense unless you tell me where it occurred. And we saw what happened with gerrymandering in Virginia.
@Jackson Georgia. Just one example. Google it.
3
Quite a few of us non billionaires are afraid of EW. We don't think that there are enough 1%ers to pay for Medicare For All, we don't want to lose our access to our Doctors of choice, some of us have kids who have already graduated from college and some don't have children and we all don't want to pay for someone else to go to college. While many if us agree in Climate Change we have all the other Democratic candidates we can vote for who agree with us. I agree that the billionaires have too much money but I don't as do most of my middle income friends agree that our work was for naught and that we were or are underpaid paupers.
7
So you got yours, so it doesn’t matter what happens to everybody else? You do realize when there are large numbers of struggling, underpaid workers, this is a drag on the entire economy. And that affects you and your middle class friends too.
2
it is impressive how a language can be inflated. In any reasonable civilised democratic society Warren would surely be a moderate - but now in this strange era of Trump, even leftists consider her radical. This is crazy - after all, she does not want to touch into any pillar of the capitalist society. Asking billionaires to stop profiting from insane tax laws is not just moderate, it is the only sensible thing that can stabilise the society. It is a must if democracy is go on.
3
The billionaires would be billionaires if it wasn't for the sweat off the backs of little people.
Billionaires need to remember… now they're being reminded… that without us to exploit, they'd have nothing.
2
@Mr.Reeee Why do you assume workers are exploited? Some people actually make good money.
A lot don’t. Most people can’t afford a $400 expense. Just because some people are doing ok doesn’t mean there aren’t large numbers of financially stressed workers out there. Ask people who work at food banks. Their clientele has changed - they see lots of people with jobs now.
2
I am afraid that if she is nominated Trump will have a second term. Also, I question her judgement. Plans with no chance of being enacted are not serious.
8
Let's repeat these statistics just so they sink in:
"If Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion."
That's "billion" with a B. Why does anyone need 13 BILLION dollars? Why does anyone even need one billion dollars? NO ONE should have that kind of money. Not with so many people scraping by, not with so many ills in the world. Let's not feel sorry for the billionaires. Whether they have 13 billion or 97 billion, they will have very nice lives and be just fine.
5
@Warren H
"Why does anyone even need one billion dollars? NO ONE should have that kind of money."
You don't get to determine what other people need, or what other people should have. How many kids do you have? Why so many? Maybe we should start dealing with global warning and over-population by having the government redistribute children from people who have too many, to people that don't have enough.
I mean really, who needs 5 kids?
2
I am no where near being in danger of the wealth tax, and the mark to market tax will have minimal effect on me.
However, when we all get our kicks out of beating up on those with money and levy a 6% to 10% tax on their assets (for billionaires that is 6% plus about 4% on the mark to market tax if they keep their money in the stock market), the public stock market will now provide a negative return for these people, and they will shift into private equity and foreign investments that will be more difficult to evaluate and tax. Even for those of moderate means, stock will be far less an option, with a lot of the gains being taxed each year.
The resulting drop in the stock market will put 2008 to shame. And in the end, people will lose their jobs and their homes.
And what will happen to the funds to pay for M4A ? Without the expected tax revenue on the rich, and without the expected tax revenue on companies that are laying off people, the only choice will be to raise taxes on whats left of everyone else.
And when the dust settles, the rich will simply buy back what they sold at a significant discount, just like what happened in 2008.
Be careful what you cheer for.
6
Great headline. Like so much in the Times ... for the last 50 years - unconnected to reality.
People aren't afraid of EW. They just don't trust either the government or Democrats to handle something as important as healthcare better than the likes of Aetna and UHC - WHICH SHOULD SCARE the Dems silly.
That is, obvious incompetents whose business model says, "DENY is the best default option when it comes to coverage" are actually better than the equally brain-dead clerks the Democrats will put in place.
People EXACTLY like the rocket scientists who staff the USPS.
WAKE UP. People would rather pay a little bit more - even a lot more - to have bureaucrats and clerks handling them "pretty efficiently" than OSTENSIBLY save money when you're going to have the mess you currently have with loan forgiveness - i.e., people who truly cannot spell or read, much less think.
This isn't about rich vs. poor - it's simply a recognition that because NOBODY with a brain goes to work in the civil service - and hasn't for decades - one will get even more shafted dealing with THEM than with the for-profit world.
3
Untrue. The postal workers around here are friendly and efficient. The last time I had to call my private insurance company it took forever to even get a person let alone get my questions answered.
2
We need a proper graduated income tax, along the lines of Eisenhower. Then acquiring more wealth beyond dreams of avarice will no longer be worth it, and maybe the ultra rich will care about community and infrastructure, and pay living wages again.
I agree the wealth tax is impractical. But a proper tax structure that uses obscene profits for the common good is an excellent recipe for a sane society.
3
“What she’s peddling is bull. Total, complete bull."
I might agree with you somewhat, Mr. Cooperman, but only as far as her health insurance fantasy is concerned... which will mean more of Trump if she wins the Primary.
But being that the income disparity is what it is and being that it is only getting worse rather than better, it turns out it's what you are peddling is actually where the complete "Bull" comes into play.
And one other thing as the debt is growing larger and larger...WHO do you think is supposed to pay it all back? More taxes on the middle class and the poor?
Poor billionaires...only left with 30 billion instead of 60. My heart breaks for you
1
Property taxes are a wealth tax on the middle class as it is their largest asset. I pay property taxes of 3% and have to find a way to pay the taxes every year. What is my property worth? The city and town asses a valuation on it. Why can't Billionaires pay a wealth tax on their largest assets, stocks, bonds etcc.. like the middle class? As for valuations on art, horses or private business, well if a valuation can be assessed on my property a valuation can be assessed on billionaires art.
5
You are so right. Even the guy living out of his car has to pay property tax on it. Why should billionaires get a break when the rest of us don’t?
2
The story at the top of my news feed before I turned to Times and this piece read "How a trio of son-in-laws are deciding US-Turkey policy".
What are we becoming anyway? That headline is what should scare people yet they are ready to surrender their country to a coterie of gazillionaires who promise to make them "great" again. They don't care about anybody's greatness but their own. When things get too bad in the USA, after they have hollowed the country out, they will move to Europe to enjoy the civilized accoutrements of ….erm…..socialism??
1
"The combined net worth of the 2019 class of the 400 richest Americans was $2.9 trillion, up from $2.7 trillion in 2017. As of October 2019, the U.S. had 621 billionaires"
US population: 327.2 million
So why are the billionaires on TV attacking Warren?
They're outnumbered.
That's roughly 0.0002% (rounding up). Why are they so powerful that the rest of us don't count?
3
Obama proved in 2010 that we have the structure to go after where the rich hide their wealth. Certainly, we must increase taxes on non-income revenues. Thanks to new technology, it is possible to track money transferred to off-shore treasure islands.
What we lack is the will to go after the rich. I think Liz isn't talking about unorthodox changes in taxation only bringing it back to normal before Reagan and the Bush dynasty. In that society, the rich were expected to invest their wealth into new ventures thereby empowering growth in the economy. This system worked pretty well for over 40 years. Once you understand that our present situation is not normal it's a lot easier to develop the willpower to go after interest income.
3
Mike Bloomberg has the same right to run for President as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. The fact that he's more qualified shouldn't be held against him. Neither should the fact that he is a billionaire and they are millionaires.
Warrens rich and middle class critics have a right to be nervous. She wants to take away everyone's private health care and put it into a single payer monopoly. We have a single payer system in this country. Indian Health Services. It's a national disgrace.
4
Is the Indian Health Services a disgrace because it is a single payer system, or because it is hideously underfunded? The Canadian system is single payer but is adequately funded and it is a great system that Canadians wouldn’t trade for the US system for anything. The same is true for the Brits, the French and every other modern industrialized country with a single payer system. So looks like the problems with the IHS has more to do with funding than it being single payer..
6
@James Felder You think were going to adequately fund it when the Republicans get re-elected? We don't adequately fund SS or Medicare now. Of course it won't be adequately funded.
3
Take back our democracy and our economy vote Progressive, vote WARREN
4
According to your fellow columnist Pul Krugman it is the U.S public who may be not ready for candidates like Warren and Sanders. It puzzles me under which scenario, yours or his would they fare better?
2
I pay 22% federal tax on my one-person forestry company. Weyerhaeuser, a gigantic forestry company, pays 0% federal tax. Warren for President.
12
@Rich Fairbanks
We need more of these narratives and fewer national TV appearances by the obscenely wealthy.
Compare and contrast, thank you!
3
Most of the comments appearing here are old saws for which there is no proof:
-They say that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are too radical to win. Fact: The safe, tried and true Democratic choice - Clinton - lost, despite all polls.
- They say Elizabeth Warren will be called a radical. Fact: in today's world, if they can't smear someone, they'll make up false facts against them, attach a catchy label to them, and spend lots of money to defeat them.
-They say taxes on the rich will cause them to move. I'm old enough to remember the last tax raise. No one moved, and the Treasury grew.
There are more, but these are examples.
5
I think the billionaires you quote are correct: Warren is selling "shiny objects" and "bull." A wealth tax is patently unconstitutional and has zero chance of passing a senate that includes red states.
Wanna stop hereditary transfers of wealth & power over a billion dollars? Inheritance tax and very high income taxes on large incomes- personal and corporate, will help. Getting rid of the step up in basis, or severely limiting its application would too. Tax captal at the same rate as labor. Apply "payroll taxes" across the board- just as tax used for defense and other citizen services applies to all income and doesn't phase out over a certain threshold.
Mr. Bouie implies the billionaires he attacks act and decide policy out of self-interest yet seems to believe his criticism is based on a sense of fairness. Better to assume Mr. Gates and others are acting out of fairness and decency and ask them what they think would be good policy.
I fear Warren because of her willingness to promote herself by offering "plans" that will be enacted as readily as Trump's plan for Mexico to pay for the wall. I will vote or a houseplant over Trump, but prefer to vote for a party that is reality based.
2
This article - and particularly the comments thereupon - really do illustrate why Sanders/Warren/every other progressive darling don't have functional plans. They're selling economic populism, and economic populism has never and will never work. A property tax on billionaires might fund a couple of light rail projects. It's not going to redistribute any wealth in any significant manner. Accomplishing that is going to require structural and systemic changes - it's not going to be solved by a questionably constitutional (at the very least, any Federalist will have a conniption fit) tax policy.
Adjusting the marginal rates is a good idea. A consumption tax might be a good idea if it's structured in such a way that it's truly progressive (as opposed to something like a sales tax, which is - if anything - fundamentally regressive). Vilifying people who have money, though, and trying to attack them by way of their property is silly and deserves ridicule - not the same kind and degree of effusive praise that certain other individuals' "solutions" to the trade gap and immigration received.
2
Warren is watered-down Bernie.
5
Trump has greased the richest and kept spending. Warren and Sanders want to tax as much as possible and keep spending. Trump is the ultimate crony capitalist crook. Warren and Sanders have their own corrupt constituency they want to feed with huge taxes and spending.
Alexander Hamilton believed that regulated avarice was good...greed and capitalism inspire innovation. Unlimited greed without regulation and you end up with Upton Sinclair, the Jungle and body parts in hot dogs. Unlimited taxation and government growth and overregulation and you strangle innovation.
In the former soviet union, people were given a small plot of land they could grow whatever they wanted, and the productivity on that small plot was immensely more than the collectivized land.
We need to strike a balance. In my opinion, Warren and Sanders are charlatans like Trump who will say and do anything to get elected. You cannot tax your way out of the financial debt and the financial crises that is going to occur...not an if but a when.
We need a real leader who can unite red and blue with realistic proposals that deals with spending and taxation, and who proposes limited but practical regulation that protects the environment and the vulnerable.
1
Funny you should mention Upton Sinclair. People complain about socialism all the time, well why do they think it’s popular now? Socialism might not have seemed like the answer to the characters in the Jungle had they not been treated so poorly to begin with. If workers were getting a fair deal, this wouldn’t even be an issue now.
1
The best part of this article is the line "The only response worth making to this idea is to laugh." Let's see what happens.
1
Shorter billionaires: We're going to pull the rug out from under the economy if you dare make us pay one penny more.
4
This article is very naive. These billionaires know perfectly well that a wealthy Harvard Law professor is not exactly a threat to the economic or political status quo. They complain, this builds her cred with the young and the lefties, she wins, and then she more or less governs as Obama Pt 2. It is hardly the end of the world by any metric, for Americans rich or poor. Now Bernie Sanders is another story, but the odds of him being nominated are vanishingly small.
4
“if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion.”
These estimates can be only based on the unprecedented bull market in the recent decade. This bull is unsustainable at best, and there is no guarantee that we won't hit a long-term recession either, in part because billionaires will start liquidate their equity holdings to hide them elsewhere if Warren will try to implement her ideas. Not to mention that these ideas will never be approved by Congress. The danger I see in Warren is that she is not flexible enough; won't accomplish much, and Democrats will be blamed "for doing nothing".
1
Warren lets millionaires grab pitchforks so she doesn't have to own up to raising middle class taxes on all those liberal "middle class" millionaires who like get 'real' with common people.
The annual household income for the middle third of America, a reasonable description of the middle class, is $35K-$95K. (The median household income is about $60K.)
So let's raise taxes on the upper class (households earning over 100K) to help support the lower two-thirds of our country! Let's see how popular THIS is at NYT.
4
It's a cliche, but nevertheless applicable: "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." Honore de Balzac.
5
All of this attention on income inequality is not focused on the root cause. It’s an under educated population.
America has been horrible at education for 50 years now. The problem is too many Americans are not equipped with the skills for 2020. Too many have no skills except a willingness to show up. That’s not good enough. Where’s the big, bold ideas to transform education and retraining for the 21st and 22nd century?
The low wages are due to having too many people chasing low wage work. Why would they chase low wage work? Because they can’t chase high wage work.
It’s only going to get worse. Oklahoma has 4 day a week school. Chicago schools don’t teach anything to the majority of its students. The rest of America simply gets by with decidedly mediocre education. Only a small percentage get college degrees or picks up a useful trade (which are in high demand).
Also, Americans don’t want to move and feel entitled to stay in their hometowns despite the lack of jobs.
Look at how we’ve been stacking up educationally with the world. Always at the bottom end. How long did you expect that to last without having a repercussion.
Foreigners can do manual assembly. Foreigners can also do programming and their countries have enough rule of law to conduct business.
It’s supposed to be difficult. But going and just raising taxes without fundamentally addressing our education and retraining system will ruin our economy, increase poverty and drive up frustration
2
Warren must have flunked 3rd grade math and English as she isn't able to add up all the new taxes she would inflict on working Americans and apparently never learned what the word free means.
1
Me.
2
"They would still be billionaires"
This is the revisionist nonsense peddled by socialists such as Warren and Sanders.
There is no evidence to support that their policies produce prosperous societies. They simply claim that their policies, when applied to a prosperous, capitalist society, will generate revenue.
The last 100 years have demonstrated that Socialism does not create prosperous societies. None.
Selling a socialist agenda as the solution to issues associated with capitalism is a false hope. The real fix is to make incremental changes to a successful capitalist system so that more people prosper. The false hope is to follow a single person, and all of their grand, irreversible plans, to singularly re-invent America.
The hand-waiving Sanders, and the central 'plan' Warren make assumptions about spending other people's money that runs counter to the actual evidence on socialism.
5
“There are billionaires who oppose Trump, of course. But for the most part they aren’t class traitors.”
Oh, that’s so generous of you. I’d be surprised if Trump’s worth has even three zeros at the end of it. But I digress...
We know how the story of extreme income inequality ends. Always. We’ve seen this story unfold many, many times throughout history: France, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina to name a few. Ultimately the rich pay very dearly sometimes losing most of their wealth and sometimes all their land. There’s no reason the same can’t happen here.
So, right now we have a choice. The leveling can happen gently through legislation and the extremely wealthy can keep most. Or, a bit down the line, the leveling can and will happen violently. And the rich will be lucky if they still have their designer undies in the end as they scramble to get the hell out safely.
I personally believe the violent outcome to be a certainty if this isn’t dealt with soon. Having a president like Trump has made it clear that the US is capable of quite a low bottom.
2
The fear lies within the Democratic party leadership. They fear that none of their candidates can defeat Trump. They fear that their machinations in the 2016 election will be revealed. Now they throw the impeachment hail Mary pass with one hand and look to introduce new candidates with the other. Yesterday Bloomberg. Today Deval Patrick.
2
Warren is a bourgeois liberal. A President Warren's job would be to put up a show of fighting the plutocracy, then gallantly accept her proposals being voted down by Congress . . . Betraying the working class is what Democrats normally do. That is their function in the system, and the invaluable service they perform for it . . . . Sanders, by contrast, is a Socialist (though forced to work through the Democrats by the two party duopoly). As he keeps repeating, his is not a campaign, but a Movement. A President Sanders, as Labor Organizer in Chief, will confront the billionaire funded, bought-and-paid-for Congress with hundreds of thousands of youthful protesters in Washington--if they resist his program of much overdue reforms . . . The difference between Warren and Sanders is fundamental. Eventually the Democratic Primary voters will understand this and choose Socialism.
2
I think we have gone collectively bonkers. We have a set of democratic candidates who announce plans for remedying every ill of modern American life with tax policy. Many of those plans ignore the reality that many of those ills, if not most, result from foolish choices. Choices that we made to abandon budgeting and taxation strategies that served the economy well for decades following the Great Depression, until Reaganomics reared it's ugly head.
We don't need a wealth tax. We need tax reform. Real reform, restore true progressivity to rates. Tax income, all income, earned and unearned at the same progressive rates.
Attempts to rewrite history with wealth taxes will never pass muster. Make a real budget, we have enough spending history and cost benefit history to accomplish that task. Set tax rates at a level that enables us to pay our bills. That is enough work for the next half dozen administrations without wandering out into the weeds in search of the holy grail of total wealth equality. Let us settle for income equity. Let us enforce anti-trust laws. Let us regulate where we can demonstrate real benefit to the commonweal. Let us elect a congress persons who take their oath to serve seriously.
5
I have known many wealthy people throughout my life, hardly entering that category myself, and it used to be that their sense of civic duty stemmed from paying taxes -- an excuse to avoid contact with messy society. Now they just shut up, free from taxes and free from engagement. Elizabeth, you are on the right track.
6
"they want Democrats to choose a conventional nominee: a moderate standard-bearer who doesn’t want to make fundamental changes to the economy"
No, they want someone who will not undo the fundamental changes made by Trump, just pretty up the picture of Republican changes so they can go on and on. That is called Republican-Lite.
It isn't moderate. It isn't even a Democrat. They want a "nice" Republican to run as the Democrat against Trump. They want what Dubya tried to sell as a "compassionate conservative."
6
She's a Senator. Has she put any of her "plans" into legislative bills that enumerate exactly how they will be implemented?
No? The plans only come out if she gets elected? So how is she helping people now?
4
#BernieBlackout. How can you write an article about the presidential primary candidates and their policies regarding extreme wealth inequality without mentioning Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren is the candidate of the wonky, professional managerial class represented by members of the mainstream media who fear the *truly* radical change this country needs. Bernie doesn't just talk about "big structural change," as Warren does in a mealy-mouthed way, he means to enact it. Don't be fooled.
4
The practical, as opposed to the psychological aspects of raising taxes on the wealthy are not even close. Both sides just freak out-- Bernie's "the top one percent!" and the right's squeals of "socialism!" are both getting really old.
It's like the bogeyman of M4A. It's not black and white, not all or nothing.
A friend of mine who has cancer and is on MediCal (Medicaid) told me when he paid cash to get an MRI, they scheduled him 2 days away. When he went broke and switched to MediCal, they scheduled him 6 weeks away. It's a business, and it's terrible.
We can do better if we just stop being so scared of progressing.
2
Look the difference between Bernie and Warren and moderate Democrats is plain and simple. The moderate allow themselves to be bought up by corporations and billionaires and are expected to protect their interests only, Bernie and Warren will not take corporate or billionaires' money and are free to represent us. Why oh why can't NYT let any one who writes for this paper say that? Yes Moderates also will make no changes so the billionaires get to keep all their tax cuts and loopholes, you at least mention that in passing. But for God sakes talk about the money that is paid to the moderate politicians to keep those things in place and are often and expected to do even more to favor the wealthy. The worst part of this is the propaganda the billionaires and corrupt politicians feed us about how we cannot have things because they cost too much, we have to go slow and it is fair that we pay around 7% of our income and the rich pay 2.5 % on theirs in taxes. It is only right that Amazon pays no taxes and we give government subsidies to booming oil companies and so on. Corporate well fare is fine, safety nets for the rest of us must be cut. And regular citizens buy into this and support moderate candidates who will never, never do anything for them and in fact rob them. Where is the fresh air of the truth on this matter in mainstream media? Moderate means malevolence against you and your family, it means highway robbery by the rich and their minions.
4
No one is afraid of Elizabeth Warren. There is trust in American democrats who will ensure that Warren will never be the democratic nominee for president.
6
I am not worried about Warren's "income redistribution," although she should find a better way to explain it as that phrase is about as meaningful as "quid pro quo." I am worried about health care redistribution. I don't know what Medicare for all would mean to patients currently getting very expensive drugs needed to treat less common conditions. Would those drugs have to be dropped from coverage (or never developed) in order to pay for standard blood pressure and insulin costs that are needed by more people? I understand Warren intends to force drug companies to lower prices, but what happens to those people who need them while the process works its way through? Warren needs to explain how this will work as well, in clear terms and not rallying cries. The devil always seems to be in the details.
4
No President can require a drug company to produce any drug they find to be unprofitable at the price Liz wants to pay. They will simply discontinue the line and if they have patent protection, no one else can make the same drug. All her plans will be meaningless because she can't compel the doctors to take a 50% pay cut, they will not work for Medicare rates, period. They will set up private, so called, concierge practices, where private payment will avoid any connection with the government. Plus, many doctors over 60, will just retire.
3
Consider the balance of positive and negative outcomes for the super wealthy vs the average person.
The proposed additional taxes on the wealthy will not cause any of them to lose their health care, become homeless, not be able to afford childcare, or accumulate punishing debts if they pursue higher education. The wealthy will still have disproportionate political influence, and will still have lifestyles that are essentially unimaginable for most of the public. Perhaps they own only 3 houses rather than 5, etc. (Remember Ken Lay's wife claiming the Lay's had suffered after the Enron debacle - that they were forced to sell one of their houses?)
Additional taxes on wealth will have no dire impact for the SMALL number of persons who might be categorized as super-wealthy. But we might gain truly important benefits for the VASTLY larger number of people who now have important needs going unmet.
It's difficult to take the objections very seriously.
7
The economy is like a game that everyone has to play, but unlike a game, people's lives depend on it.
In a game, if someone wins by say collecting all the markers, then the game stops. This cannot happen with the economy because people would die.
So in the economy people cannot and should not be allowed to win by collecting all the markers. The problem is that is exactly what has been happening. What Eliz. Warren and Saunders are proposing, is a redistribution of the markers so that the economy can continue, which if they think about it, is completely in the interest of the billionaires.
4
We need to change the the question from how many billions they have to how many people they employ; I know full well,I am not smart enough to be a billionaire, but I still need a job.
1
Warren's plan will tank the stock market and make us all poorer. That's anyone with a 401K or a pension. The only way Gates could pay $6 billion in taxes is to sell Microsoft stock. (No one has $6 billion in liquid assets, except maybe an oil sheikh.) That alone will crash the stock at least 20%. Then Bezos has to do the same with Microsoft, Zuck the same with Facebook. Suddenly all of these ultra rich are selling stock to pay these taxes and they are forced to sell into the teeth of a market downturn. The value of the stock drops, their wealth drops. And every investor panics. A vote for Warren is a vote for another Great Depression.
10
Fearing Elizabeth Warren is not the same as disagreeing with with Elizabeth Warren. There's far too much analysis suggesting that anyone who opposes her is "afraid" of her platform. This narrative supports the misguided notion that she is some sort of political savior, fighting the good fight against all the corrupt 1%ers out there. The truth is that many people oppose Warren because (1) she is the most likely candidate to lose to Trump, or (2) her platform is based on a series of flawed revenue assumptions that will fall woefully short of expectations, or (3) she's just as divisive as Trump, just on the other end of the political spectrum. To Warren I say no thank you.
4
Frankly, I'm not afraid of Elizabeth Warren. She's extraordinarily bright and she has given a great deal of thought to changes that could make our country better.
Elizabeth Warren is on the right side of history.
However, I'm not so sure her policies are serving her well. While she has a large, passionate following, there's little (if any) data showing that she would be the strongest candidate against Trump.
Wall Street doesn't like her. That's a good thing from a policy perspective, but it's not such a good thing from a practical perspective.
Recent polls have her trailing Buttigieg in Iowa and Biden in New Hampshire. Not good.
Every candidate goes through a tough patch. I suspect Elizabeth Warren is experiencing that right now.
3
If Mike Bloomberg gets into the race it will not be to stop Warren and Sanders from siphoning off his huge wealth. It will be because no one in the Democratic field looks electable against Donald Trump. The threat of four more years of Trump is Bloomberg's biggest incentive to run. Like millions of us, he is worried about the future of the republic.
With their Medicare for All plans that force people to give up private insurance, Sanders and Warren can't win in November. Beyond that, if one if them did win, they would have zero chance of having Congress pass their far left agenda. Bloomberg's money is safe; not so sure about the future of our democracy.
2
Raise taxes to get the deficit down. Fix and fully fund Obamacare to improve health care.
3
How many billions of dollars does it take to make one feel secure? Let those with billions eat cake.
2
"if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion." Wow. TWO HUNDRED and FORTY BILLION $$ would have been gained - and just from THREE individuals !! Stop for a moment & imagine the incredible and great things that money could have been used for to help improve our nation and the overall quality of life for the 'rest of us' !!
4
How dare Gates make a joke about his absurd wealth, when people are living on the street, unable to afford medical care, vulnerable to predators, and unable to maintain basic levels of hygiene? How dare he be so sickeningly out of touch?
4
The most efficient way to tax wealth is through a confiscatory estate tax which taxes every penny of wealth above $25 million, for example. I believe Warren Buffett and Senator Warren would support that. It is the simplest tax to enforce. Gates would not support it. I am for a confiscatory estate tax.
@James Ricciardi Somehow you feel,entitled to other people’s money. Simplest tax? Do tell us how you plan to measure “wealth”.
2
@Jackson Read my other comment in best comments of the day. I am getting it from all sides which must mean I am getting close to the truth.
2
I don't think the billionaires would have to learn to live with the people's will. Our government is structured so that either the Presidency, Senate or Supreme Court could relatively easily prevent or invalidate anything that comes out of the House of Representatives, the one branch of government that is susceptible to the threats of the mob. And if the wealthy could also control the press, well, Katie bar the door. I really don't know why the oligarchs are worried. The deck is stacked.
4
The issue with Warren is not that she supports higher taxes on the super-wealthy. That is a popular position. It is that, in her naivete, she thinks a President can just wave their hands and cure all of the ills of society with a massive redistribution of money and stupendous spending programs. She reminds me of a clever high school student with zero real world experience and no appreciation for the realities of human nature--or the electoral college.
10
A number of people have pointed out that a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional. Others have pointed out that it will not pass the Senate ... even if the Democrats manage to get a majority. Warren and Sanders would be better served if they planned to make income tax rates as progressive as they were before Reagan. The rich wouldn't like that either ... but it _might_ pass ... and there is ample evidence from the past that it will _not_ have a negative effect on the economy.
2
Just remember, Sackler was able to transfer a billion dollars out of the country with no real issue.
Think going after world-trotting multi-billionaires won't involve them simply moving their money?
Look at CT, NY, billionaires are leaving to Florida en mass. Once Tepper left NJ, they legitimately feared issues with their state budget. That is the power of a billionaire. An entire state budget.
7
Please present the flip side of who would have what if these taxes had been levied back whenever. How many bridges would be fixed? How many lives would benefit? How much less the deficit?
7
Instead of these convoluted multi-trillion dollar schemes to redistribute wealth, we could simply tax capital gains at the same rate as labor.
85% of the wealth of billionaires is from stocks. By having the same tax rate for all income, billionaires taxes would be effectively rise from 20% to 37%. Much fairer and more effective than this 6% billionaire wealth tax. It would also generate substantially more income.
8
Also something we did until recently. And it encourages long term investments and discourages speculation.
3
@nydoc You do realize it’s not just billionaires who sell stocks, right? I assume you have no investments.
5
@Jackson
This suggestion on the NYT board was not meant to be public policy end all. One could make an allowance that the first three million dollars of capital gains would be exempt or taxed differently, hence protecting 99% of mom and pop investment portfolios.
Right on Jamelle, I could not agree more. And it is important to reiterate that these policies need not be implemented from a perspective of vindictiveness or jealousy. This is about justice, and what is fair. It is unrealistic to believe that these few men have contributed this much to society. They run great organizations with many excellent employees, that rely on scientific research or products funded in part or in full with public dollars. It is not ALL their money. But our government, and we through inaction, have let them believe so. It has gone on too long.
4
@Ben This sounds like “you didn’t build that” whine.
We can't have universal healthcare because it's too expensive. We can have a massive Tax cut for the wealthy even though it added a trillion dollars to the deficit. We can't raise the taxes on those 1 percenters because they will shift their money overseas. So, in closing, millionaires and billionaires must be protected from increases in taxes because they will simply abandon our country. Yet in his tariff war Trump raised 38 billion in revenue for the treasury out of the pockets of Americans. That's a fact. even though Trump tries to say that 38 billion comes from China that is a lie. That revenue is a 38 billion tax on consumers and business.So Trump has no trouble raising taxes on Americans, just not his buddies at Mar a lago.
6
A wealth tax did not work in several other advanced countries - how is this not compelling to Senator Warren? It’s too difficult to implement and billionaires will find a way to game it or avoid altogether. We need a VAT tax. It’s so much more efficient and no loopholes. 150 countries use it successfully. Furthermore, a VAT tax would not be regressive if UBI is also passed.
2
This country was founded by people who fought to get out from under Royalty and Divine Rights . It seems to me we have re -established a new Royalty. I don't like it , not one little bit
5
Gates would only have 13.9 billion dollars. Poor baby.
4
And if general election voters decide to reelect Trump instead of electing Warren or Sanders because they fear their numbers don't add up on Medicare for All and the middle class will face tax increases and they'll lose access to their preferred doctors, then all of us will have to learn to live with the catastrophe of another 4 years of Trump.
I am all for taxing the wealthy a bit more but I'm still not convinced this will directly make the poor and the middle-class any wealthier themselves.
3
I've heard an idea floated around on how to appraise items like art, horses, land, etc.
1. You have people in the wealth taxable bracket (above $50 million) write down the value of each of their assets whether it's art or a luxury yacht.
2. The government has the right to buy the asset at the price listed.
3. The government can then sell the asset in a public auction.
This ensures that these assets won't be artificially undervalued to avoid taxes. Obviously it won't ever be this simple, but I think it's lazy to not do things because it might be a little complicated. There are definitely ways to value difficult to appraise assets.
Even if Warren or Sanders won the nomination and the general election, their income redistribution agenda would go nowhere in Congress. Furthermore, the backlash against their respective Medicare For All plans from lobbyists representing the insurance industry, big pharma, medical associations like the AMA, among other industries which would be facing enormous economic changes, will be fierce and unrelenting. These huge issues will most likely prevent either Warren or Sanders from winning the general election which is why are both disastrous nominee choices to take back the Executive branch.
1
"...if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion."
Mr. Bouie unwittingly identifies the elephant in the room: a "wealth tax" is a non-starter if you rely on the existence of wealth to fund your priorities in perpetuity. Yes, Ms. Warren could, for a few years, fund Medicare for All by bringing the outrageously wealthy down to Earth. And then what?
2
I keep hearing about Senator Warren's plan for this and I wonder, How is she going to get any of this without a super majority in both houses of Congress? None of this can be done by Executive Order, nor by a bureau of the executive branch supervised by the President. The President can push to get it done by Congress, but without the votes in both houses it's just noise: noise which will repel the independents needed for election.
1
@Jim
She won't. This is all fantasy. It's Warren's Wall.
She's buying votes from voters too stupid to know better.
Defining the fight as Warren vs. the 1% is good for Warren. Defining it as Warren vs. the 0.00019% is a whole lot better.
3
Any American taxpayer who is not deathly afraid of a potential Warren presidency is either brain dead or in favor of their own financial suicide. There is no way in hell that her plan for a $21 trillion expansion of Medicare will be paid for simply with a wealth tax on billionaires. Taxes on the middle class would need to skyrocket. Meanwhile her advocacy for the Green new Deal would gut the American energy industry and result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas production and exploration sectors. Warren is not only a socialist, she is a communist in the mold of Lenin and Trotsky. Elect her, and you are calling for the end of the American economy as we know it.
10
Problem with this analysis is in the last few lines for Bernie wouldn't be able to beat trump and Warren has only a slim chance in Hell of doing so. The Democratic Party needs to stop looking for pie-in-the sky solutions to and the face reality -- something the republicans never will do.
1
Who the .0001% really fear is the out and out Socialist, which is why MSM, owned or fed by the .0001%, dast not say his name.
A simpler approach to taxing the 1% of the 1% will be: eliminate caps on medicare and SS (so all pay equal %s of income); define all income by any source as income, no more 15% special for cap gains, etc.; of course tax all foreign income the same as US income; tax Wall Street speculation, the per trade tax.
That should bring in a big wad to pay for proposed spending...oh yeh, kill all loopholes, otherwise no change.
& don't shy away from the S-word. Most of the best things in America are...public Ed, the interstate, SS, Medicare, workman's comp, unemployment Ins, even foodstamps...
2
I have some questions for Elizabeth Warren and her supporters:
1) How are you going to determine which Americans have more than $50mm so you can seize part of their money? Are you going to audit every citizen?
2) What if their net wealth is tied up in a small business or a farm? When you seize part of their assets are they forced to sell and fire people?
3) What if the super wealthy flee to Canada right before your "Billionaire's tax" is signed into law. Do we lose that entire tax base and Canada wins (hint: yes)?
4) What if Americans start giving their wealth away to family members right before they reach your $50mm threshold?
5) What if Americans start buying blocks of gold and burying it in their backyards to keep your grubby little hands off of it? Are you going to have some gestapo like secret police come around to people's homes and start kicking in doors?
6) What if people who are wealthy start buying liquid art works so your auditors can't value them properly?
7) And lastly, why did you pretend to be a member of a disadvantaged race? Probably the most disadvantaged race. Why?
5
The billionaires may be socially progressive, but one should never underestimate their use of bigoted and racist conservatives who will vote or act against their own economic self interests.
3
The main points I'll make are that people are vulnerable to pandering that aligns with their bias and that thinking it is a good idea for the govt to legislatively steal assets that were earned according to the Rule of Law would be America's quick trip on the down elevator. Envy is a human emotion that invariably brings bears toxic fruit. Of course I'm old and watching the historically uneducated babbling on Marxist redistributive themes (what's yours is not your, it's mine) is just sad. Bye bye America, here comes the Trojan Horse.
1
@Joe
When the Rule of Law is bought and paid for by the wealthiest...
When the Rule of Law is written by those lobbyists, organizations, and/or legislators who “pander” only to the wants and interests of the wealthiest...
Then the Rule of Law ceases to serve the broader society, our democratic republic, and the Rule of Law needs to be changed accordingly.
Conservatives will not change the Rule of Law, unless it’s to create greater inequality.
Moderates/centrists (those “liberals” who are actually “soft conservatives”), if they do attempt changes to the Rule of Law, will do so feebly and inadequately.
That leaves necessary changes to the Rule of Law up to those on the Left side of the political continuum: old-fashioned liberals, democratic socialists, and socialists. These are the only people/groups that will genuinely attempt changes that benefit the broader society.
Of course, moderates/centrists are welcome to move a bit farther to the left and join the good fight.
1
@Mon Ray- what would it take to get you to open up a textbook on socialism and read so you know what you are talking about. Socialism, indeed.
1
It is pathetic for anyone to pretend that they have a right to a billion dollars or more. It is disruptive in the extreme and it feeds the delusion that the skills to make a billion dollar fortune give your opinions outside of your area of expertise any additional weight. As we have seen from the example of Ben Carson, a remarkably skilled surgeon who is a stunted moron on public policy. Skill in one area does not readily translate. Taxes against such fortunes raise revenue for important and beneficial new programs and are needed to weaken the excessive influence of these anti-democratic plutocrats.
1
George Carlin explained the American Dream this way: They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. There are many credible research studies making Carlin's point re the lack of class mobility in the United States today. Related specifically to Warren: the dream of being rich is reflected in how many Americans vote; on their aspirations (dreams and delusions) not on the reality of their circumstances. The winning lottery ticket could be theirs any day - sleep well, sweet dreams.
4
Great. But is she electable.
1
For Democrats like me, this is just a sideshow. The reason I "fear" Elizabeth Warren is that she will nearly certainly lose to Donald Trump in the general election. It doesn't matter what I or Jamelle Bouie or anyone else on either coast thinks about her ideas, they will be DOA with the swing voters we need to end this nightmare. Unlike many of the hard-core Democratic primary voters, I spend a lot of time with people who hate Donald Trump but would rather stay home rather than vote for either him or Warren (or Sanders). Sure some of them hate her wealth tax, but many of them don't. What they ALL hate is Medicare for All, decriminalization of illegal immigration and some of the other internet memes that make up far too much of her platform. It is irresponsible to prioritize policy fetishes, no matter how noble they might seem, over the incredible urgency of getting Donald Trump out of the White House with a clear, devastatingly strong majority that would be the start of driving his core supporters back under the rock from under which they crawled. It is really just that simple. Those who argue that "we tried the moderate candidate idea with Hilary and it failed" are ignoring the many ways that Hilary was a flawed candidate, starting with her manifest weaknesses as a politician compared to her strengths as a policy wonk. The lessons of 2018 could not be clearer - a moderate Democratic candidate will clean up in all but the reddest of red districts. Elizabeth Warren will lose.
5
What's not to like about the wealth tax?!? It will bring in a tsunami of revenue and almost all of us won't have to pay for it. So what's the problem? Well one argument for universal healthcare is that all of these European countries have it, so should we. Many of these same European countries (Germany, Denmark, Sweden) had a wealth tax and abandoned it. Why? It's expensive to administer, distorts savings and investment and causes wealth flight. Also, it didn't raise as much revenue as anticipated.
Arguments like Bill Gates would have had $13.9bln in 2018 instead of $97bln, implying that the US govt would have accrued that $83bln difference are specious. Maybe Microsoft wouldn't have grown as it did, maybe Gates would have moved the company from Redmond WA to Vancouver. Maybe Microsoft would never have become a public company. Bill Gates made billions, but not as much as cumulative amount made by pension funds and mutual funds that have benefited millions of Americans.
5
Advice: targeting the rich is a loser. Most Americans admire millionaires more than newspaper columnists. Just saying.
4
Gee Mike I grew not far from you across the line in Philly and I don’t admire millionaires especially the ones who inherited their wealth like Trump and blew it and stiff his contractors and stingy to boot.
Give me a Warren or Sanders any day since Reagan the rich have had a ‘free’ ride.
3
Every poor in this country is an temporarily embarrassed millionaire!
A tad disingenuous. Many non-billionaires and democrats are also "afraid" of Warren.
Yes, yes, it's hip at the NYT to bash billionaires with "They didn't build that" claims, but Americans aren't buying her zealotry or inability to entertain legitimate criticism of her "Plans".
3
Um... the problem is that no one is afraid of Warren.
At least, not any of the Republicans because they know they can beat her in a walk and tear down every other Democratic candidate by tarring them as a Warren follower.
The only people that fear a Warren candidacy are Democrats who understand the challenge of winning the general as well as the makeup of the 2020 electorate mixed with Warren's incredibly terrible message.
And that part of her stump speech and response to other Democrats is to say if we aren't for her mandated Medicare plan then we aren't Democrats and should consider leaving the party is idiocy. How does she propose to win when she attacks the voters she needs to come out in huge numbers?
2
I love Warren's policy proposals, but I'm concerned about her apparent naivety.
Many many years ago my husband told me that just because someone asks you a question, you don't have to answer it. Warren hasn't learned that (e.g., the DNA test, tax increases for single-payer)
Yes, you need to be responsive to your constituency, but you don't have to let your political opponents lead you around by the nose.
I am not a billionaire but I am afraid of Warren. It is not about talking tax the rich, it is about lack the ability of running a country. US is not a American Indian tribe.
1
Elizabeth Warren's real life tracks closely with the movie script life of Darth Vader.
Born to meager circumstances, Elizabeth Warren, very intelligent and ambitious, taught herself to be expert in a number of subjects, law and finance. She proved to be very wise and insightful into the workings of the Bank System.
....
Stepping into politics as a Reagan Republican, yes....a Reagan Republican.....it did not take long for young Elizabeth to recognize the evil behind the throne, GHW Bush.....she quit.
....
Rutgers and Harvard Law School provided the necessary networking to help Elizabeth Warren on her way to using Power to right the wrongs......
...
Then Elizabeth met Hillary Clinton.....and the DNC took over....Shamelessly endorsing Hillary, Ms Warren lusted for the Power and Money that the DNC offered in exchange.
...
Now a Senator, Elizabeth Warren created her own personal Power Base with the unconstitutional Consumer Finance Protection Bureau....Campaign Funds......Slush Funds.......SuperPACs.......all with the DNC Jedi Mind Trick of hypontizing the people with "tax the rich" messages.
....
Elizabeth Warren, the force so strong in her,,,,,is now lost to the Dark Side.
2
I'm laughing with Jamelle Bouie. I can't tell you how good it is to have a NYT Op-ed columnist that I can do that with. Bravo Mr. Bouie!
1
These billionaires - many of whom likely follow a Judeo-Christian outlook - should be grateful that they aren't required to follow the rule of tithing, contributing of 10% of ones wealth as outlined in the Old Testament. But they'll still think of themselves as spiritual and charitable as they fight tooth and nail to keep every nickel they've sucked up from the rest of us.
Yes, they should be scared, but not of Warren. She's actually doing them a favor by forcing them to be more equitable in how they carve up the wealth that all Americans contribute to. Because if they don't, they may well be faced with much more forceful demands, perhaps another Tea Party or an American Spring. And if you don't think that's possible, who ever predicted Trump being in the White House?
Our system is broken, and has been for decades. It's been intentionally rigged to suck wealth up from the 99% to the top, and it's working as designed. But how can a system that depends on consumer spending be sustained when the vast majority of consumers have seen their wealth decline since Reagan? Do you think the succession of "bubbles" bursting is a coincidence?
Those bubbles bursting aren't a "bug", they're a "feature". Who do you think benefits when the economy crashes? The the billionaires, who can afford to weather the short term fall, but then have enough left over to buy up assets at distressed prices, thus regaining all they've lost and more. Billionaires are vampires. Ready the stakes.
1
Anyone who thinks Warren's billionaire tax would have no negative effects on the middle class should read this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-2-cents-come-at-your-expense-11573515899?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
2
How MUCH money do you need??
1
I wouldn't be able to look my children in the eye if I only had $13,000,000,000 (that would be 13,000 millions-think about it). What a disgrace I would be.
I don't see any evidence that Trumpx tax cuts for billionaires has trickled down any. So these billionaires and their huge corporations are not helping the middle class. I guess if Warren or Sanders gets elected they will move all their assets and manufacturing jobs (what's left) out of the country in their final act of patriotism (not).
2
I’m afraid of Elizabeth Warren. I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I’m afraid of four more years of Trump. Which is exactly what Warren would give us.
2
I don't know Jamelle, there seem to be a lot of poor whites that do not like her much.
Yes, but will she parody Bette Davis if she makes it to the White House, “What a dumpppp!”
Gotta love it.. :):):)
The issue w Warren is her lack of electability first and foremost. Second if one looks at her attacks in Wall Street it was a facade. The risk is still there, it’s just in non bank financials to whom the banking sector lends too. So there has been a little bit not a lot of systemic risk reduction. She is a populist of the left.
Trust the NYTimes to keep ignoring Bernie.
4
Lizzie Warren took an axe
And gave the wealthy forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave the middle class forty-one.
4
I agree that Leon Cooperman's opposition to Warren is great for Warren. The more billionaires pile-on Warren the better it is for her. I am not a billionaire. Not even a millionaire and I do not like her position either. She is as divisive as Trump just from the opposite direction. Also it is one thing to raise income taxes to a fairer level but she sounds like she wants to run people's lives and that smacks of a way too authoritarian system.
3
Ms Warren has created how many jobs that brought the poor up from poverty? she has grown the pie by how much to feed people is that a resounding zip nadda zippo a big ZERO.
Equitable as an end goal is a nice idea but it isn't ever going to happen. An even playing field access to capital thats the great equalizer. Tell me what society on earth has taxed its way to a prosperous polity?
The recent rise of experimental work testing to relieve poverty was a warded as a nobel prize if we want to gauge equity we have a million plus work force where every one is treated exactly the same by race creed color etc. Look no further than the US military every soldier is paid the same and we have the same extrapolation of rich and poor the facts are the facts and the test bed has a long data set. Throw out he outliers like the Bidens and McCains etc and we have a real world test case about the egalitarian ideals presented by Sanders , Warren and their ilk . I argue that your plan ofequity never ends up that way after a few years some become rich some save ,some invest, and many blow their wad every weekend.
2
You are of course entitled to your opinion, Mr. Bouie, but if you think center-right America is going to elect a candidate who will take away their private health insurance, pay reparations for slavery, decriminalize illegal immigration and abolish ICE, confiscate the wealth of many of its citizens to redistribute to those "unable or unwilling to work", etc. etc. your are - in my humble opinion - out of your mind. And the one who will be laughing last is Donald Trump whose re-election was guaranteed by bubble-dwelling left-wing fantasists who don't have a clue what the majority in this country is willing to swallow.
4
Having given away manufacturing to China, the idea that America will introduce extreme taxes on its billionaire innovators is economic suicide.
People forget that most of the billionaire fortunes under discussion consist of paper wealth in the form of stocks, often of the companies they have created.
To pay wealth tax on such capital assets, they have to be sold.
Who is going to buy them ? China ? Saudi Arabia ?
Why would American billionaires not simply quit America in favour of foreign tax friendly jurisdictions ?
Just how far do the socialists think the billionaire wealth is going to stretch ?
$10 trillion divided by 330,000,000 people is $30,000 per person so the party ends pretty quickly.
Rather than getting carried away by a socialist brain explosion, it would be far better to implement sensible constitutional and electoral reforms to restore a properly functioning democracy in which money did not buy power.
In respect of taxation, international experience suggests the US would find that implementing a simple, consistent tax regime with no exemptions and modest but progressive rates of income tax would produce startling results.
There are countries that do not tax capital gains (where one is not trading in assets for profit).
There are countries that do not tax assets owned in any material manner.
Furthermore, they are very successful.
Some like New Zealand have respectable public healthcare systems to boot !
3
Not clear why you have lumped Tom Steyer in with the other billionaires as to ideology. He is (a) the only billionaire officially in the race and (b) he vociferously supports a wealth tax. Your characterization of him here seems I’ll-informed.
Here’s a better question- who’s afraid of Bernie?
1
Why bother getting upset about it? It simply is not going to happen.
2
Mr. Bouie,
I am not going to enter a Who Despises Trump more contest. But you simplify - far too much - when you write,
"President Trump has been good for America’s billionaires. He slashed corporate taxes, cut the top income tax rate and raised the total exemption for the estate tax, directly benefiting several hundred billionaires and their heirs."
The Republicans - all of them - did these things. Trump did his part by not issuing a veto.
It is possible that Congress will be completed castrated subsequent to the apocalyptic scenario of Trump's reelection; but until then we should heap scorn (liberally, I might add) on all the saboteurs of democracy, all the zombies of trickle-down class warfare, not just their dim-witted front man.
Thank you. Our entire social landscape has been destroyed by greed. To make this country work for all its citizens, the wealthier members must pay much more. Today the wealthiest Americans often pay little or nothing. Injustice breeds more injustice and violence. The will of the majority cannot continue to be suppressed and thwarted. The DNC helped bring us Trump.
1
I wish I could say Elizabeth Warren, a very smart, very principled, very fit former law professor, could nab the nomination and the election in 2020. But the oligarchy will prevent it from happening. The system is already bought and paid for. She has my vote...but alas, it doesn't work like that anymore.
3
Bill Gates paid over $10 billion in taxes and you say that is not enough?
Gates started in his garage. He didn't get big bucks from his parents. His "advantage" was that he created something that people wanted to buy. His "advantage" was that people continued to want his product. If you don't like Microsoft - buy Apple.
In any industry - management, production, marketing, distributing, etc drive profits. To say that "they did too good of a job" so they should be punished, doesn't seem fair.
2
@Tom
When I worked at IBM in the 1990's, word was that Bill Gates' mother was friends with someone on the IBM board of directors. And that's how Bill and DOS got their start.
So, without mom's help, he might still be tinkering in his garage. Just like tons of other very smart, hard-working people who don't have family connections.
"And they want Democrats to choose a conventional nominee: a moderate standard-bearer who doesn’t want to make fundamental changes to the economy, from greatly increased taxes to greater worker control."
'They' here is the billionaires for the author of this text, but in fact 'they' correlates better with common Americans.
Warren's plan and actions are somewhat anarchistic, completely unsupported by the current situation or sentiment in the USA, and she has close-to-zero chance to make it all the way through.
Which is not a problem for the Manhattan-based Champaign socialists to extoll her.
2
I am a professor, not tenured, so I'm far from a millionaire. I teach low income students and purchase books and supplies for them on a regular basis. I would love to tax millionaires and billionaires but for the time being, I would settle for just a little tax fairness. One thing that comes to mind is reinstating the deduction that allowed me to subtract the items I purchase for my students on my taxes. Trump callously removed it thinking, I guess, that teachers are rich. I am also widowed and losing my husband's income, in addition to his social security was a blow. Timing was bad, too, as our son has just started college and I was faced with paying for college on my income. It was a bad situation. Would I love to see Warren's policies enacted? You bet, but I think the difficulty in actually collecting the income will be a game of Whack a Mole. At this point, I'd settle for just a bit of fairness. As for Bill Gates and the other billionaires crying crocodile tears, I'll get out the little violin.
2
US citizens are five of the top seven wealthiest people on earth, if you believe wikipedia, and comprise the majority down the list. Therefore requiring our approximately 680 Americans who are billionaires to liquidate some of their holdings in order to pay a new 2% tax, over time conceivably can change the balance of power among world governments (assuming governments are purchased by oligarchs.) It's conceivable yet in practice the global effects of a proposed 2% tax aren't predictable if only because which holdings would shift and their valuations in a future political climate is unknown. Predictable however is the truth Elizabeth Warren has integrity and listens, she cannot single handedly add a 2% tax as president, and she will be (as Senator has been) successful in forging bipartisan legislation to improve the integrity of financial practices benefitting all Americans. Warren is a millionaire of proven effectiveness and integrity in government, who will bring billionaires and paupers alike to the table for real, productive negotiations and progress.
1
You can't equate all Billionaires as if they were a race. Both Warren and Bloomberg seem profoundly honest about serving the interests of the people. Bloomberg does not need to enrich himself; he opted to give away a large share of his wealth. Warren does not come across as being interested in enriching herself after a presidency, she might be the extremely rare candidate who is not pursuing wealth as a secondary priority. None of this can be said about candidates like Obama, whom you somehow dropped from your list of "the wealthy". Both Bloomberg and Warren appear to be much more honest, much more selfless candidates than Obama ever was. The US should be proud to have such candidates, after a long string of mediocre presidents.
2
@Lala - Race should have nothing to do with it. The single mom working two minimum wage jobs should not be compared to Oprah even if she is the same race.
Elizabeth Warren is a details person which is good and not so good. She works overtime to present all her plans to the electorate who can't or won't follow them with full understanding. In short she is too clinical, sounding like a lecturer in economics rather than embracing the larger role of presiding over all government as leader of the free world.
Nor does she present the appearance of a chief executive appearing in garments reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's fireside chat in sweater and tie. Does she own a suit of any type? I can't imagine her as commander- in-chief of the armed forces leading them to battle whenever that may necessary, or confronting Putin in a one-on- one. I'm not so sure this "soft" approach is reassuring to the American masses. That she is smart is evident and would do an excellent job in the cabinet as Treasury secretary etc., but for now she won't be strong enough to beat Trump across the nation.
5
Let us also imagine - in addition to how many billions of dollars these 400 ultra-billionaires would not have if Warren’s plan had been in place for years — how many amazing public services that government provides would have been bolstered by funding...money that would have gone to programs that lift people out of poverty, provide food for hungry children, prevent suicide, support our vets, strengthen our education system, reduce family violence, provide people with necessary medicines and medical treatment...let’s all imagine what that would have been like. And could be like.
4
Mr Bouie is correct, this is a democracy and the voters will decide, not the billionaires. But Warren's problem is not that she wants to tax the rich. That's a popular idea and could help her get elected. Her problem is that she has promised to take away private health insurance and put everyone in a government plan. It's probably the best way to go, but would surely lose her the electoral college against Trump because there are thousands of union workers and union retirees in the Great Lakes states who fought hard to wrestle good health plans from their employers over the years, and would not vote for her.
6
The ones with significant financial assets, the millionaire/billionaire elite aren't just worried about Elizabeth Warren's agenda, what scares them is who Warren is. An individual who will not be deterred from her focus, will follow through with a fierce commitment to get things done with a resilient resolve. She's not just the talking politician proposing to make change, she's fully up to the challenge of taking on the opposition to make those changes. Warren is a resurrection of the Democratic Party that once was and operationally faded away over the last 40 years. And it's got the financial elites plenty scared.
5
You write "many have rallied behind candidates who want a more equal, more democratic economy" and seem to think that Sanders and Warren are those candidates. But is Medicare-for-All more equal or more democratic than a single-payer option? And why do you think that the Sanders or Warren's programs will produce a more equal or democratic economy than the programs of their rivals?
2
Thank you Jamelle Bouie. Time to go make another contribution to the Warren campaign.
2
They need a billionaire on a white horse to come to their rescue. The natives are getting restless.
3
I'm afraid of Elizabeth Warren. She has exhibited an "Off with their heads" destructive attitude to her appointed public enemies private insurance, corporate America etc. While it may have worked for the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland the leader of a democratic free country would serve it better seeking constructive consensus. I an NOT a billionaire millionaire or even a 100 thousandaire.
5
The Prius this isn’t exactly a democratic or free country.
"And if those voters decide to nominate Warren or Sanders instead of a traditional moderate — and if either of those candidates beats Trump, as is very possible — then the billionaires will have to learn to live with the people’s will."
"The Billionaires will have to live with the people's will."
You can bet the "last" penny you have left, after the Billionaires get through stealing everything from you, that Trump, his Republican partners, the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer democrats, Bloomberg, and corporate America, will do everything imaginable to stop Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren from becoming their waking nightmare, our 46th President.
They will lie, cheat, manipulate, engage in perception management techniques we have yet to dream of, to stop Warren and Sanders, and appoint one of their own.
Wake up Americans, wake up and stop them.
2
One question I have is why media outlets continue to ask billionaires what they think about taxes on billionaires. Why does anyone care? They're a tiny sliver of the population, and of course they're going to say they don't want the money they stole from America's working people to be fairly distributed.
Stop asking them what they want.
5
@C
Come on. Billionaires "stole" from America's working people? In fact, many have created thousands of jobs which employ America's working people.
Like you, I want billionaires to be taxed dramatically more than they are. But that means "distributing" their money to America's working people. That is a lot closer to "stealing" than anything they have done to the working man.
We don't have to be intellectually dishonest to advertise our moral outrage, do we?
@Livonian If you have billionS (with an S) of dollars, then yes, you have stolen from America's working people.
I'm not saying they stole all of their money. I don't deny that they created jobs. But then hundreds or thousands of working Americans actually DID those jobs for an infinitesimally tiny fraction of what these people "earned" off of that work.
None of these people have to work another day in their lives and they will still see their net worth increase dramatically, because the actual workers keep working. Take issue with calling that "stealing" if you'd like, but to me the distinction between 'stealing' and whatever you want to call it is unimportant.
Gates and Bezos know that only people like Gates and Bezos are competent enough to be trusted with their billions. Gates is highly generous but he also expects a level of efficiency that government fails to approach. I would rather see billionaires bury their wealth in the backyard than see the government flush it down the toilet with endless war in the Middle East, social programs that don't help the most needy, handouts to the healthcare industry, etc. Consider the student loan forgiveness program proposed by Warren. This is a regressive welfare program for the middle and upper middle class. That is, Warren looks at the 350+ million Americans and sees the greatest need among... college educated adults?!?! To me this is an obvious attempt to buy votes. Gates and Bezos should keep their wealth before handing it over to probably the most privileged group of people on Earth.
2
>Mark Cuban, a billionaire investor, said Warren — whose wealth tax calls for a 2 percent tax on households with more than $50 million in assets and a 6 percent tax on households with assets of more than $1 billion — is “selling shiny objects to divert attention from reality.”
Per her website, Warren calls for a 3% tax on household assets over $1 billion.
https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/
1
I'm a school teacher, but I'm not a big Warren fan.. I view her 'transformative' policies as having too many unintended and possibly negative consequences..
Certainly health care reform is good, but a complete overhaul of the system, and forcing people into Medicare...poses lots of risks.
..And that's just one of her many dramatic policies.
-- And i have big doubts how Warren and her policies would fair in the general election..
--So trying to paint those who don't support Warren merely as a bunch of spoiled billionaires..is ridiculous.
8
While the noise erupting from the oligarchy about Warren's tax proposal is unsurprising, the near total silence coming from the candidates about the cost of our war machine - with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard - has been deafening.
Not only is reducing the cost and size of our military broadly supported across the electorate, with about two thirds of Americans saying we need to spend less, it would go a long way to fund Warren's programs.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/228137/americans-not-convinced-needs-spend-defense.aspx
What could we do with the money we saved from closing down just a couple hundred of our 800 (!) military bases around the world, eliminated a handful of the jet fighters and ships that even our generals say we don't need?
1
Here's where I stand on this...all the tax cuts for the very well off since the 1980s were proclaimed to have the purpose of "trickling down" in the form of jobs, wages, benefits for workers, the middle class, etc. However this never happened, rather the government was starved of revenue, the infrastructure of the country deteriorated, benefits for the poor were restricted as well as derided, and wages stagnated as jobs were downsized, off-shored, retirement benefits seized in equity liquidation, etc. The very very rich pat themselves on the back for their philanthropy... from Carnegie and Vanderbilt to the Koch Bros and Bill Gates, yet do everything in their power to limit worker pay, unionizing, employee health and retirement benefits for the very people who work for them without whom they would be hard pressed to produce the billions that they enjoy. Surely, the billionaire class can and should pay more in taxes than they currently do, but their best contribution to the economy -- rather than inflating stock prices by buying their own stock -- would be to actually expand their workforce, increase worker pay and benefits and insure that prosperity is something that is shared by all.
4
Warren has debunked the notion that Bill Gates would have to pay $100 million under her tax plan. There is far too much hyperbole in this election from the rich.
1
Bill Gates used part of his wealth to solve vexing medical problems in Africa and is engaged in cutting edge nuclear reactor research. Jeff Bezos is building rockets with his wealth. These projects are providing much to the common good and doing it more efficiently and cost effective than any government program could. Such projects likely wouldn't have happened with a Warren type tax in place.
Punishing the rich may be a feel good way to score political points but the unforeseen consequences will likely be worse than any significant benefits resulting from such confiscation.. by well meaning politicians spending on pet social programs.
3
@Lane
Meanwhile, the people who vote are wondering how they can pay for their vexing medical problems and how long the bridge that allows them to get to work each day will hold out.
They might wait for billionaire saviors but...it just won't happen.
@The North. A wealth tax could help with medical access and bridge repair, at least in the short term. In long term the tax could have unintended consequences that must be considered.
New technology rockets,reactors, disease eradication using high tech have great potential value too.
It's good billionaires are scared. But I think only Bernie has the conviction to make their worst nightmares come true, considering he thinks correctly that there is no way to "earn" your way into a billion dollars.
2
Nobody is afraid of Warren. Her viability as a dem candidate is what matters, and that is a complicated issue.
Between Warren and Bloomberg, Bloomberg has to offer deeds such as donations and foundations that put him out of the weathiest club; Bloomberg has incredible business and goverrning experience; Bloomberg alone has demonstrated that he stands for his words and will act according to his values. None of this can be said of Warren. She might be a perfect candidate by what she states, says and claims. One thing is sure: Bloomberg will do something about gun control. Bloomberg might also be able to introduce single payer health insurance. How likeley is it that Warren will be successful on thiose issues? Finally, Bloomberg does not attempt to make the US into yet another social market economy; his silence on the taxation of the wealthiest is a sign that there is more than one way to raise the funds needed for his plans. Whom do you trust more to find alternative financial resources, Warren or Bloomberg? Again, nothing against Warren, but between the two Bloomberg is the far better choice.
4
I don't think Trump is afraid of Elizabeth Warren.
6
@carl bumba
Why, because he hasn't tried bribing another government into announcing an investigation into her on TV (yet)?
@carl bumba He should be........
@Bobcb
... afraid of Bernie Sanders (and maybe Biden, unfortunately).
2
Reversion to the Pre-Trump status quo is precisely what these billionaires and others want- and that's why Biden is heard promising that "nothing will change." Nothing will change. Your healthcare will still be substandard AND too expensive, your wages will continue to stagnate, your kids will be saddled with life crushing school debt and our water and air will continue to sicken us as we watch hurricanes destroy the East and fires consume the West.
3
Oh, those poor, poor billionaires! How could they possibly face the day if they only had 13 billion dollars instead of 97 billion? How could they even survive if they couldn't buy...uh, well I can't think of anything they couldn't buy. But the billionaires must be suffering mightily just thinking about Warren and how she might make them super poor with only 13 billion dollars to their name!
4
The Stockholm Syndrome that this nation has for billionaires doesn't seem to be going anywhere. So when college costs are two million dollars and there's no Social Security and Citizens United has labor completely stamped out, people can explain to future generations why Warren was really scary. It will give a whole new sense of meaning to the phrase, "OK Boomer".
5
And I suspect a lot of folks supporting Warren are not employed in the medical industry. I’d love it if she now declared education to be free and set federal government mediated salaries for all teachers, be it public schools or universities, no private education mind you. I wonder if she will have as much support from as many folks. After all government jobs notoriously pay the least they can for the most work extracted.
1
It is in some ways ridiculous that these billionaires are so scared of Senator Warren's sound and promising policies. Shouldn't they care about the future of their country and not just their wallets? If they claim to be so forward-thinking and philanthropic, why not extend that to the population at large and not just a few pet causes where they get photo-ops and tax breaks? So they will end up with less money but don't we all, given what we make gross and what we end up with net? I am glad Senator Warren is running on this platform, at the very least she is opening up a long overdue discussion about wealth, inequality and justice in the American context. To her I say: Godspeed.
2
If anyone is wishing for a return to life before Trump I would just ask them to remember how the Republicans treated Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama. If we so need a moderate look what they had to say about Micheal Ducakus, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, or even John Mac Cain. Every one a moderate. Now comes the cry for moderation. Does anyone expect Mitch McConnel, Louie Gomer, Ted Cruz, Dick Cheney or any of the rest of those Jackles will want to sit down and be nice? They never did it in the past and I would ask why anyone. Who would think they want to know? They have no history of it. The whole Republican Party needs to be payed back in kind rolled and set on the junk heap of time. We need to fix the damage they have done for the last 50 years and the time to start is now.
5
We are blessed to live in a capitalistic society. I came from poverty. I have four degrees, including an MD. I worked my tail off to get where I am. Still, I treat underprivileged patients; many have no desire to work when they have full capability. Giving them even more means they surely will not want to work, thereby increasing the financial burden on those who do work. Sacrifice, initiative and hard work are rewarded in America. That's how its been since our Country first started. Handouts for laziness should not be rewarded. I cannot vote for Sanders or Warren under any cicumstance. I would be forced to vote for Trump if either is the nominee.
4
Bravo.
1
Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. Better to be a pig than a hog.
2
Two things:
1- I agree with everything you say.
2- I think I know what Jeff Bezos thinks about this!!! I worked in one of his warehouses during a holiday season years ago!!! It was like hell on planet earth! He worked us for every cent of his meager pay! He counted every second we were at work, measured how many boxes we packed, how long our break or lunch time was etc. that was before he got to 100 billion. Perhaps, he’s changed since. I heard it’s more mechanized now, so he has less annoying humans to put up with presumably.
From the greed I saw in his work environments, The greed that’s gotten him to 100 billion, I think he’s losing sleep over Warren.
3
Suggest you ask fellow New York Times analyst Nate Cohen about Warren or Sanders beating Trump. Getting more votes? Sure. Winning enough swing states? Not happening.
2
Warren will make Americans the equivalent of H.G. Wells' eloi.
1
Ms. Warren and Mr. Bouie have one thing in common: a need to get over themselves. Ms. Warren would have zero power to carry out her "plans" without a cooperative Congress. And Mr. Bouie has zero power to make a difference too.
3
Actually, I am "afraid of Elizabeth Warren" even though I'm a lifelong (at 79) progressive, New Deal Democrat. Why? Because Warren will be viewed as a "a tax and spend socialist" with Medicare for All that spends $20 trillion when we need to give top priority to climate change where she's spend an niggardly $3 trillion. Not only are her priorities backward, but Medicare for All has absolutely no change of passing given it denies consumers choice, will face the massive opposition of the for-profit health insurance industry, pharmaceutical manufacturers, doctors and hospital associations that can not stay in business under the slim reimbursement (compared to private health insurance) of Medicare. If Warren would only step back and agree to phase this in by converting state run Medicaid plans which enroll 74 million with Medicare for All, I would feel comfortable voting for her. But, not now. Her plan would take a winning issue and turn it into a losing one and we must not lose the 2020 election.
5
Elizabeth Warren is our best hope for saving our country from criminals and billionaires. It is time to focus on We the People.
3
@Colleen What have billionaires done wrong? Philanthropy?
I am afraid of Lizzy.Socialism sounds great on paper.In many of it's previous incarnations it achieved great leveling of wealth inequality but made everyone poor instead raising the poor to middle-class .Cuba, Venezuela, Russia are prime examples.Warren nomination will lead to a Trump landslide.Her American Indian fiasco is not an isolated incident.As we learned from HRC it is hard to run against Trump if you have too much baggage on your back.Mr Bouie carried water for Hillary and here he goes again.
2
@Gdk
Add UK, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy to your list.
1
I am sick of people telling me that Warren (and Sanders for that matter) are too far left. What did we get with Clinton? Trump. I am a young millennial and I want someone who inspires me.
It's ridiculous that the same policies that Warren and Sanders are espousing are in place and already implemented in Europe. It really shows that regardless of the US being the richest country in the world, we are still far behind our allies.
We need to catch up and Bloomberg and Biden are not going to do that. But I can bet my money on Warren and Sanders. No questions asked.
4
@Up Down All Around
You need to look at Europe. It's a mess. All the major economies are in trouble. UK has been under austerity measures for years now. Italy's budget was denied by EU because there is no way to generate enough revenue for planned spending. France yellow vest protests are centered around the economy and poverty rate. Greece is still, after years, a mess. Spain and Portugal are in bad shape. Germany is on the decline which is why you see a return to a more populist movement. You're believing in a pipe dream, a pie in the sky promise with nothing behind it. Wake up every day and put on the BBC and Euronews. Watch for 30-60 minutes. Reality will be different from what you believe is happening out there.
1
@Up Down All Around
None of the Democrats' policy objectives stand a chance of being enacted unless Democrats take control of both houses of Congress with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Sorry to say, that won't happen because red state voters love to prevent progressive change and they only listen to what Fox tells them and Trump tweets.
Why do those on the left insist on creating so much hate and discontent between all groups of people? It is long past time to call out this behavior. On the NYT site, I see numerous dramatizations of whatever group having conflict with whatever group. Let us imagine what our news would look like without all of this. Maybe everyone would be much less stressed and we could focus on the important things...you know...like curing cancer.
3
Can we please start calling the billionaire’s money hoarding the mental illness it really is. Stop enabling their disease, it is ruining our society.
1
@Picot Look at the all the money Bill Gates and other billionaires are donating. They are not just hoarding it.
1
Perhaps stating the obvious here, but you wouldn't know it from how the corporate-owned media's been reporting the Democratic Primary race:
Every Sanders supporter will jump straight to Warren if/when Bernie drops out. And vice versa. Their support combined is scale-tipping vs. Biden's or anyone else who's running.
So yes, the vast majority of people - people! - want to see our country pried not only from Trump and his criminal posse, but also from the purchased and bribed influence of the mega-wealthy and the corporations.
Dems should be fearful of a "safe" route such as a Biden or Bloomberg, because a generation+ of these types of "Democrats" is to a large degree, what got us Trump.
The mainstream media would have you believe that Bernie's sun has set, and that Elizabeth can't stand up to Trump - that people won't focus on her policy proposals.
Reporting by the New York Times (and the Washington Post) is absolutely vital, so this is no diss. But people, if you really wanna know what's going on in this country and the world in terms of equality, corporate greed, and the causes and effects of wars, tune in to Democracy Now! - broadcast M-F 8am-9am EST, and always streaming.
2
You should be afraid of Elizabeth Warren. Her net worth is $12M. Don't forget that she was a Republican much longer than she's been a liberal Democrat.
2
I don’t understand all these commenters saying THEY love Warren. THEY will vote for Warren. It’s just that others won’t do the same so.....
This makes no sense. If you will vote for her, why do you presume that others will not? Just like a Democrat. Throw in the towel before you’ve even entered the ring.
Warren "leads the field" in New Hampshire? Nope. She and Biden are at 19.7 (according to RealClear Politics). Bernie's at 19. It's true, as Jamelle Bouie notes, that she leads in Iowa. By just 4.3. Bouie writes that she's "not far behind" Biden in national polling. She's behind by 6. Nice spin.
2
As they say, "In America, right now, a sociopath will get elected over a socialist." Warren has some interesting ideas but she will never get the votes of the middle class mid-western voter. I'm afraid she won't get the votes of the liberal California voter. Her ideas are just to far out there for most Americans at this point in history. Besides she has that "I know best" attitude which many us find offensive. Please Ms. Warren drop out and stay in the Senate or take a post in the newly elected Democratic government. But give up the idea that you will be President. It will never happen.
1
What is good for the goose (1 per cent) is good for the gander (99 per cent). You cannot expect people who make 150K a year or less to pay for absolutely everything. Just shut up and pay your fair share and be thankful you are in a country that affords you the opportunity to make the millions and billions you have, even if you did pay the extreme tax rate, you would never have to worry about living day to day, check by check, deciding on whether medication is more important than hunger, keeping the lights on, feeding the children, having enough to repair the car, much less have one, and if you can afford 100.00 for a pair of sneakers for your teenager, have lunch money for them and a decent, clean winter coat. Just shut up and pay it, the greed and avarice these days makes the Regan years seem as though Mother Theresa ran the world.
2
I hate to say it, but I no longer have confidence that the final say on who will be president or sent to Congress rests with the voters.
As I watch Republicans in Congress prostitute their conscience in defense of the indefensible, I am wary of what is to come. Republicans have regularly engaged in voter suppression, closing polls in non-Republican neighborhoods, gerrymandering and dirty tricks (misinformation robo calls, fake news), but now they reveal they have no conscience, no loyalty to the nation, no hesitation to kneel in servitude to Trump. Will they stand by his side when he declares the 2020 election results fraudulent and declares he won despite the outcome? What do you think?
3
I thought it was patriotic to pay taxes.
2
It’s time to end white collar welfare benefits for billionaires.
4
We should tax the billionaires out of the country and seize their ill-gotten wealth.
Go Liz, Go! Don’t let these cry baby billionaires stop you from continuing to fight for hard working Americans who have been marginalized for far too long by our so-called liberal or conservative leaders and their corporate overlords. You and Bernie are the only candidates who will earn my vote in the upcoming presidential election. If you’re making millionaires and billionaires mad, you’re know you’re doing something right. And speaking of anger, in this case righteous anger, there are so many Americans, myself included, who are sick and tired of cutthroat predatory capitalism and how it has eviscerated the middle/working class in this country. Please don’t give up the fight as we’re just getting started. And we’re all with you!
3
Who is afraid of Elizabeth Warren?
This article only made a one point.
The true answer is that America is afraid of Senator Warren - because she is female and America still isn't ready for smart women to have a say or worse to have power.
Men have disdain for smart women. Women have disdain for smart women (I guess it isn't lady-like.) And a woman as Commander in Chief seems to be too hard to stomach for your average American male. "Unlikeable" - that is silly. Is likability the top metric for intelligence and ability to lead?
The NYT would being doing American women a favor if some thorough journalism is done looking at why American hates women - misogyny is real.
And Senator Warren might do better hitting this one head on. Is it fashion? Is it femininity? Is it as superficial as hair, make-up and overall appearance that women still need to be be "pretty" to be effective in America.
Like racism, let's talk about women-hating intelligently.
And let's talk about how to market a female candidate so that the country can learn to accept super smart women.
2
The proposed wealth tax is a direct tax and is unconstitutional. See Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. (SCOTUS 1895), a decision that ruled the earlier Federal income tax unconstitutional and necessitated the adoption of the sixteenth amendment, which authorizes a federal tax on income, from whatever source derived. Warren is a pseudo-intellectual who is showing her somewhat demented progressive base various shiny objects that will never materialize.
4
Class traitor? I think the last time that was used about a very rich person was in reference to FDR.
1
At the current pace, the top 10% of households will have 100% of the wealth in the U.S. 33 years from now.
Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/personal-finance/2019/08/04/at-this-rate-the-rich-could-truly-have-it-all-just-33-years-from-now/
2
The rich will stop at nothing to prevent a Warren or Sanders Presidency. Be prepared for an onslaught of tv and print ads in favor of Bloomberg, or rather, attacks on Warren and/or Sanders. It's possible the sheeple could fall for it. The rich will hire investigators to dig up dirt and a vast army of trolls to patrol the internet, including the comment sections of this newspaper, dropping insinuations, innuendoes, and outright lies. It already happened to Sanders: We got "Bernie Bros," innuendoes about not being a feminist, etc. It'll be harder to smear Warren, which is one reason I'm leaning toward her--they might be afraid to attack a woman in the same way. The DNC must have its panties in a twist--they don't want a Warren or Sanders Presidency either, but they know that if Trump wins re-election, there could be a mass defection from the Party and it may even spell the end of the Democratic Party.
2
Rubbish.
If she got elected she’ll capitulate just like Obama because she’ll need money. This also assumes congress, which is already bought and paid for by said billionaires and top percenters, would go along.
Until money gets out of politics - or at least has some real restraints - we wasting our time debating any of this.
Oh, those poor, poor billionaires! How could they possibly face the day if they only had 13 billion dollars instead of 97 billion? I mean, the agonies they must be suffering when they think about Warren's plans. It must be just horrible for them to discover that they might not be able to buy...uh, well I really can't think of anything a billionaire couldn't buy with 13 billion dollars.
1
Misleading. No one is afraid of Elizabeth Warren, but a majority of middle class citizens and Wall Street are afraid of her policies & ideology. Luckily if by some miracle she got elected she would lose more Senate & house seats then Obama (and that is an all time record). She would be forced to rely on EO’s which would go to the SC (with Trumps picks). Even if she passed some crazy legislation I would just adopt the lefts precedent of Resist. I would abide by her EO’s and publicly rally people to quit paying taxes until its remedied. It goes both ways you know!
From your lips to God's ears. Can't WAIT for the Warren presidency.
1
The one billionaire who is not afraid of Elizabeth Warren is Donald Trump.
Warren does not appeal to many of the voters Democrats must win over in 2020.
A lot of working class whites like their private health insurance, and generally don’t like being told what to think, or do.
Seniors know that Medicare for all means Medicare( as they know it) for none.
Wealthy suburbanites would expect less access to health care at higher cost.
Most African Americans have little interest in plans they view as “pie in the sky.”
Scaring billionaires might be fun and interesting, but it has nothing to do with electing a President.
Simple question: how many full time jobs with medical benefits has Cuban, Bezos, Gates, etc. created in the last 10 years? I'd like to hear the answer. I'd like to see the real numbers. Contractors and 20 hour a week human widgets don't count.
2
People, meaning executives, don’t create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Bill Gates didn’t create jobs at Microsoft, demand for their products and services created the jobs.
1
I don't see Warren's plan as "taking" from billionaires, but rather giving it back to those of us whose hard work and consumerism helped them get there, but who haven't seen a raise in years. They need to stand back and let this happen, and be glad we're coming for it through Senator Warren and not pitchforks and torches.
3
The billionaires may have monetary clout to hamper Warren, but the real strength will be the no-vote of millions of middle-class folks she wants to ‘save’ who are employed by the evil-for-profit medical industry. If we thought there was a jump in the homeless now, I wonder what her policies would do if they were enacted. I suggest that democrats are blindly swinging to the very far left because folks are frustrated with status quo. It is all a win by distraction policy. In this case democratic middle class voters are being asked to gaze at the bling of billionaires till blinded and then of course sold free health care to take care of their problems. In the meanwhile, our lives will be entrenched deeper in thrift than we will ever know. Sigh, and I thought my ordinary middle class life was destined to remain stagnant and predictable whoever the government....
Our nation swung to the side of the billionaires and their White House proxy thanks to a candidate who played it safe all her life.
We have a chance to elect an intelligent, thoughtful, woman who has led an exemplary life and worked for all that she has or retain the most crass among us.
2020 will let the world know just where "We the People" stand.
1
Warren's plan to tax billionaires' wealth, though likely unconstitutional, is widely popular among democrats including moderate democrats like myself.
Much less so, is her Medicare For All plan which will almost certainly cost us the election. Warren has dug in and can't admit this, nor can she admit her math is likely trillions off and will almost certainly raise our taxes. And when she is justly criticized for her angry, unlikable demeanor which does not play in the midwest where I grew up, she instantly (and cowardly) plays the women card. What courage!
Yet I will vote and aggressively campaign for her if she is the nominee as much as I have grown to dislike her. Will progressives do the same if Biden or Buttigieg or Klobuchar wins the nomination? Why do I suspect not?
1
Everyone should be afraid of Elizabeth Warren. She is attracting considerable support with her relentless promotion of “free everything” for the masses, all to be paid for by taking wealth from a small group of people (who can move that wealth away from her grasp with the flick of a switch). She also promises to reform our economic system by completely trashing it first. She is a latter-day bolshevik and if elct d will do the same kind of damage as the original group. Brush up on history, folks, “free everything” never works.
2
Born and bred Oklahoman Harvard Professor Elizaebeth Warren already stumbled and fell hard for Donald Trump's caricature buffoon tar trap that ensnared and poltically killed his sixteen 2016 Republican Party primary opponents. Warren will never shed being labeled Pocahontas.
Moreover, her eager " I have a plan for that' recalls the devastating critique of Hubert Humphrey aka 'he has more answers than there are problems'. It was not meant as a compliment.
There is little or no evidence that the American people are seeking detailed policy proposals for any and every microscopic 'problem' that they face.
Finally no American President has been elected who does not have a Y chromosome.
Unlike the nations with the most Muslims-Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Pakistan- America has never had a female head of government/state.
Unlike the English speaking nations- Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom- America has never had a female head of government/state. Throw in the British Commonwealth plus Germany and Ireland.
1
I'm so tired of billionaires sheltering their wealth. Toxic masculinity cloaked in egomaniacal greed. Never enough for these giants who hide behind Inc. shields and amass fortunes beyond reason. One billion from any of them would solve a world of problems. You call it success. I call it power hungry ambition.
The legacy and machinations of the Koch brothers show that billionaires are very effective at manipulating the "people's will" to their own very self interested aims.
We can laugh at billionaires' pontifications. We can also despair.
Yes, we can also vote. Hope it works! This time...
1
The wealthy should pay more.
But who would you rather have spend $billions Gates has committed to his foundation? Would you rather have that pot of money spent on wasteful programs like the Pentagon?
Give the wealthy an incentive to spend their money wisely like Gates and Buffet rather than putting it in the hands of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
2
Right! And when a bevy of billionaires begin critiquing Warren as wrong-headed & impractical, you know 2 things. 1. Warren stands a good chance of winning the nomination & the election. & 2. Her policies will improve the lives of 99.99999% of us.
2
This discussion has no basis in reality. Warren will not be the nominee. If she is the nominee, Trump will eviscerate her not through thoughtful debate but rather through the smear machine that is the modern GOP. Nominate Warren and Democrats ensure four more years of Trump - a result which will permanently damage the country and perhaps fracture it as well.
In the last several weeks I've seen a good half dozen stories attacking Elizabeth Warren emanating from right-wing and billionaire circles. Makes me think that if they're so worried, she must be onto something.
I totally support Warren's plan to tax billionaires, and any middle and low income American voter should too. My God, what is wrong with American voters? Are we too blind to see who is winning in this current system? The rich is America's other political party. It's only agenda is to use government to become richer. It has allegiances to no one but its shareholders. It's unfortunate that many Americans defend the rich because they foolishly fantasize about joining its party one day.
Trump pacifies his low income voters while padding the pockets of the rich. Michael Bloomberg is simply acting to protect his financial interest and so are other billionaire critics of Warren. Bloomberg's campaign is dead on arrival.
1
This is all fairly hilarious. People paranoid about losing wealth are assuming things like this really get passed in Congress. Our system is so absolutely broken that whomever is voted in, and I hope it is Warren, will be lucky just to get Trump's disastrous climate policies rolled back to pre-Trump levels and cancel future tax cuts for the rich. By the way, do people who make $60k a year really feel it's fair that billionaires pay less in taxes than they do? That sticks in my throat like swallowing glass.
Settle down friends, we have to count on Congress for such deep cuts on billionaire, and Congress seems to only work well for corporations, lobbyists, special interests, the ultra rich, and Russians.
“but when asked if he would support Warren over Trump, he demurred. “
Bill Gates. Supporter of the worst president in US history.
1
My 401k Plan is not a big fan of her.
1
Just read David C. Johnson's book: The Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else...orginially published in 2003. Harbinger of the exact issues we know face with income disparity and concentration of wealth.
Who are afraid of Warren?
Those who consider defeating Trump in 2020 as the top priority!
1
Here's the problem with the left - "There are billionaires who oppose Trump, of course. But for the most part they aren’t class traitors." This isn't a class war ! Why can't a President be President for ALL Americans - middle class, poor and (yes) rich ?
But the left will scream that Trump lowered the taxes - mostly on the rich. You know what ? It's their money. I don't begrudge them for it. Sure, they should pay their fair share. But that doesn't mean that the government should take all that money just because they need it. And if you think you are safe because the left will stop at taxing billionaires, well, hold onto your wallet !
The left claims that every civilized country has universal healthcare. And mostly, they are right. But they forget that all of those countries likewise have a large sales tax (called a VAT) usually at about 20%. In other words, EVERYONE pays for collective services - just like we now do with public schools. Problem with that is simply that Americans mostly don't want to pay broadly higher taxes - even if it gets them healthcare which costs less. Go see the votes even in liberal VT or CO when they looked at raising payroll taxes to pay for single payer healthcare.
Here's an idea. Stop the scapegoating. The rich aren't the bad guys that the left paints. Nor are immigrants the bad guys that the right wants you to believe. Live your life. And stop blaming everyone else.
1
The problem is I see economic inequality as the primary problem threatening our Democracy. Warren is the first and only presidential candidate I've ever known to base her campaign on this glaring but ignored problem. And she has the smarts, education, legislative acumen and political talent to push her ideas forward. It's to her great credit that her arch enemy is the 0.1%.
The problem is, with Warren running, I would have a problem voting for a centrist Democrat; they've been trending corporate for decades and the last one lost to Trump, hard as that was to imagine. Biden, in a televised event for his wealthy donors, told them nothing will change; that sank my heart.
The problem is the centrist candidates have been lackluster. It's the progressive Warren who has consistently increased her lead in the polls and she and Sanders have stayed in the top three or four candidates. Among centrists, only mayor Pete was shown any signs of coming to life. I fear a repeat of a dull but safe candidate that doesn't excite people to the polls.
And, since the "electable" "safe" candidate has yet to be defined, I'm voting my choice; at least I know my own mind.
2
"... but Warren’s tax would have taken a significant chunk out of their assets." These "what-if" projections are interesting but fail to include what might have concurrently happened to the rest of the economy if those billions had been disbursed to multiple receivers rather than concentrated in fiefdoms. Imagine how different the public school landscape would look without the imposition of relentless private-equity-driven short-term "solutions" to problems that were never accurately identified. Had the billionaires paid more in taxes and had there been reasonable labor protections in place, it is also plausible to project greater revenue for them if wage-earners had been more able to afford their products. What if more wage-earners had the security of a government funded paycheck rather than the multinational conglomerates who steal those paychecks with private contracts? What if higher education had been fully funded and not a path to long-term debt service? What if serious illness did not lead to bankruptcy court?
It is ludicrous to paint EW's proposals as left-wing. She is actually conservative in her view that a fair day's work should earn a fair day's pay. With the steady erosion of all logical commercial and social norms, we have enabled a small group of people to consolidate power and effectively dismantle our democracy. Warren intends to restore the balance. That's as mainstream as it gets.
5
You can have Wealth in the hands of a few or a Democracy. You cannot have both.
2
Billionaires learning to live with the people's will must also prepare for the greater-than-zero probability that Warren or Sanders may lose the election to Trump.
Following that outcome, they will have to publicly reconcile what they did or didn't to prevent it.
If you can make the case that the election of Trump in 2016 was a direct response to 8 years of a black president who accomplished little (thanks Mitch), then you could entertain the fact that Elizabeth Warren, a populist in her own right, has convinced enough people that the rich should have limits, and that all the money spent by those rich to control policy runs afoul of a democracy. Extreme, yes. But I'd like to see that fight.
There is the realm of the permissible in US politics... Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are at the edge of what's allowed to be discussed vis-a-vis wealth, etc. Amazing, because both of the senators are moderate reformers. When was the last time we had one of those as president?
1
I am not a billionaire. I was a corporate bankruptcy lawyer for 3 of the largest lawfirms in NYC for 25 years. I have a BS in computer science from Ohio State (1972) and a JD from Harvard (1975). I left Harvard before Senator Warren arrived.
I believe in the income redistributive policies of Warren and Sanders. There are all kinds of taxes which can be modified or imposed to increase tax revenue and more equitably distribute income and wealth, payroll taxes, sales taxes, VATs, income taxes, etc.
I have one concern about a wealth tax. It appears to require the creation of a vast government bureaucracy to collect it. Here is why. Everyone's wealth must be valued each year and the proper tax rate applied. This might work easily for those whose wealth is in banks, stocks, bonds, etc. whose existence and value are easily known.
What about an art collector whose wealth is in Picasso, Matisse, Klimt, Calder, Jasper Johns, etc.?
Even more problematic, assume a Thoroughbred horse breeder owns a share in the top stallion of the time. The stallion's stud fee is $300,000. The stallion is age 9 and the average age for stallions is 22. How much is the share worth? Is the share insured for the life of the stallion? If it is, then the share is worth more than an identical share in the same stallion whose owner chose not to buy life insurance.
Warren and Sanders should answer my questions and should address the valuation of huge privately held enterprises like Koch.
183
@James Ricciardi, you gave me a pleasurable thrill (a true sense of schadenfreude) reading all of the ways the wealthy should ultimately be judged and appraised in terms of taxation. The fact that they have so much "stuff" means there will be a whole new industry of "appraisers" who get to value their property. Nothing bad about that really. After all, they've been living very large by rigging the system in their favor. Time for a reckoning.
In the end, the wealthy won't suffer all that much by having their assets examined and appraised. And your real question is: what's fair taxation? Well, right now it's NOT fair to working folk and far to nice to those who need to pay a higher percentage of their wealth in taxes.
72
@James Ricciardi So, you feel that the minor problems for a small handful of art collectors or horse breeders is more important than the very real, life threatening problems faced by millions--bankruptcies, homelessness, premature deaths? Really? Maybe you should answer some questions like for starters: why are you focusing on the fake problems of these rich people and ignoring the real problems of the rest of us?
70
@James Ricciardi That sounds like a real problem for the vast population of individuals that own rare paintings and stakes in champion race horses. Just because the plan doesn't address every single possible situation doesn't make it a bad idea. The article states that the tax applies to households over $50 mil and $1 bil respectively. I would say that is the vast minority of people.
56
I will support Elizabeth Warren because she shows that she supports and will fight for the middle class and those persons earning a paycheck. I actually received a check from the Consumer Finance Protection Agency 5 years ago because a bank overcharged me in a refinance. I can't imagine that happening now, as I am still waiting for my $250.00 from Equifax's epic failure (not holding my breath). I do not feel compelled to fight for the rights of billionaires.
2
Hey! If anyone says they are just too oppressed if they have to learn live on $50 million, just tell them to go back to school.
And how about Bloomberg, happy to spend $100 million on himself, but not put it toward ensuring the demo candidate.
Another “for example” the Walton or Disney family didn’t make the money and are contributing to the enterprises in any way, so why shelter their inheritance. Republicans wanted people to stand up on their own - sheltering wealth is just perpetuating an aristocracy.
2
Why do I have a hard time worrying about whether some poor billionaire has only 48.8 billion instead of 160 billion?
3
Warren's agenda scares the rich, and they are speaking up now because... wait for it... the data is telling us that too much wealth is concentrated!
Big Data is telling us what's happening. We, the voters, have to decide what to do about it. More of the same, or at least take baby steps in the right direction?
1
The attitude about billionaires, prevalent in the Times, may not be shared by ordinary Americans who will decide the election's outcome. They are concerned with having a job, the family budget and paying their bills. If they are retired, they are concerned about their retirement savings which may be invested in the stock market. The sobering articles by Nate Cohn, also in the Times, today and previously, indicate that our assumed attitudes of voters are incorrect, assumptions we get from reading political commentary here and elsewhere.
2
I think that Warren is the most able of the candidates and has shown that ability as a Senator. Getting her nominated and elected, however, will be heavy lift because of her more liberal leaning and because of her gender. Just because Hillary Clinton was nominated in 2016 doesn't mean that gender bias will not be a significant factor in 2020.
1
Mr. Bouie, I would love to see a break down of the differences between the likes of Bill Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, the Koch's, Mercer's, Walton's, Zuckerberg, Dimon, etc. so that the public starts to understand how they made their money. If a billionaire is from the fields of finance, real estate, or fossil fuel, chances are they're making billions in egregious ways that are literally disastrous for the health of our country and the health of humanity. That's where the focus should be. The net value of billionaires that are parasites.
164
@Patrick Lovell
I'd love to see you back up this idea with actual facts. It's all too easy to look at successful people, not just billionaires, and say they have their wealth because they've cheated others, or inherited millions from their parents, or avoided paying taxes. These are stereotypes that make average people feel better, because it's far easier to assume someone is a cheat than it is to acknowledge that their success was born from hard work, intelligence and good timing.
15
@Patrick Lovell All fossil fuels and gas for cars provisions should be stopped immediately in all the blue states. In New York State it has started, with 1100 households disconnected now, during the bitter cold. See the front page of the NYT today, with mayor Cuomo asking the utility to connect customers, but not allowing a pipeline for supply, and forbidding drilling.
A hundred million people will have to move to red states or die. That will show them, those vile fossil fuel providers.
3
@John Everyone who works, works hard for what they earn. However, earning solely on the money you already have is not the same as working to pay ordinary expenses of life. Anyone whose net worth is $97 billion dollars has an obscene amount of money, and if that person only had $14 billion, it would still be more than any person would need for an entire lifetime. And yes, I know that Bill and Melinda Gates also do good things with their wealth (while continuing to amass more, don't forget). How much good could people do if they actually had better roads, bridges, sewage and water systems, schools, universities that didn't have to raise tuition every year because the taxes that formerly helped to keep higher education affordable has been eaten up due to less money in state and federal coffers? Then there's clean water and air (much in danger under this administration), and - oh yes - the cost of everything for most everyone because money that should be going to make the country strong is instead being given to those who don't really need it.
14
Quick and extreme change is terrifying to most people. Elizabeth Warren is so meticulous
and articulate, she has become a serious threat: and not to billionaires, but to the dems who want to win the coming election. Extremes cannot carry the day, and those out there who do not want to vote for Trump, find themselves in a quandary. Reason and moderation still appeals to those who have held on to their rational thinking during this maniacal administration. Bloomberg is not the answer. Look again at all the candidates...let reason prevail.
2
As always, if government needs money, it has no choice. I it has to get it from the people who have money. Problem is, the assessment is relative, and changes over time. For now, the people who have money are very few, but they have nearly all the money. Arguments which say in effect, "Let the rich keep the money," have become equivalent to saying, "No money for government."
1
Our son is in the banking industry. He told us the entire industry fears and hates Warren. That's all I need to know to vote for her.
9
@nzierler I'm not surprised, but that just makes me sad. :(
@nzierler Thanksgiving at your house should be interesting this year.
1
@nzierler
So your son knows everyone in the banking industry?
If it were up to me, Warren should be the next President. However she must win the swing states, and I'm not sure she can.
If we lived in a true democracy, we could easily ignore the billionaires as Jamelle does here. However, these billionaires must be considered at some level, because with our ridiculous campaign finance system, they can easily run someone as a third party and obstruct the majority's overwhelming desire to end Trump/Republican minority rule.
To any normal person in America who wants to pull the handle for the Greedy Old Party, try to get your bamboozled brain around this:
"if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion."
And then, try to remember what taxes are used for besides the military.
4
This country needs a huge shift in favor of the middle class along with all those folks who struggle continuously to get there. I think most of us are sick of the greed and the tired excuses for why we must have a moderate. Let the people decide not the billionaires!
It is time for a BIG change and Warren is the ticket. She has fought for the middle class for years, she is smart and honest. I so look forward to her win (a woman winning against tRump - or Pence if the senate grows a conscience- will be sweet poetic justice indeed) and a chance for a new beginning that this country has needed for decades.
GO WARREN!
5
The real Q is who’s afraid of Bernie Sanders and that’s would be every liberal corporate lefty, meaning establishment power democrats. Notice how the ‘liberal press’ doesn’t even mention Bernie’s Sanders yet he is on top with fundraising and apparent suppprt. He also is the only candidate with a solid path forward. Problem isn’t that particular path threatens the $$$$ of the Democratic Party.
1
@Ericka
Just like in 2016. Why would it be different this time?
The real Q is who’s afraid of Bernie Sanders and that’s would be every liberal corporate lefty, meaning establishment power democrats. Notice how the ‘liberal press’ doesn’t even mention Bernie’s Sanders yet he is on top with fundraising and apparent suppprt. He also is the only candidate with a solid path forward. Problem isn’t that particular path threatens the $$$$ of the Democratic Party.
“then the billionaires will have to learn to live with the people’s will.”
Maybe I missed it but I didn’t hear any person with money say they wouldn’t. I’m getting tired of the NYT selling sensationalism instead of good stories and fair reporting. For an accurate perspective and an international take on global news read the Financial Times. And, I’m shocked, the Wall Street Journal is doing a better job too!
4
Research over decades show, repeatedly, that wealth in America dissipates after generation 3, if not by the next gen. There are super wealthy Americans over the last 30 years due to the 1970s shift to a global tech economy, just as those exist in other nations. No one would be reading NYT and the comment section online without them. Some of those people came from money, such as Bill Gates and Zuckerberg, but most didn't.
The response is not open borders and wild spending sprees. None of that would be on the national scene, nor would a crumbled infrastucture and failed school system, had Democrats simply left alone our well-functioning immigration. Instead, LBJ opened the borders, thereby doubling the U.S. population just since most Boomers were in middle school. And now the world's 3rd most populated nation STILL adds 2 million humans per year. No utterly illogical, undoable umpteen 50 spending programs will fix that.
Concurrent to LBJ + Ted Kennedy revamping immigration laws from educated 1st/2nd world merit-based to illiterate low wage 3rd world unskilled that never has paid for itself, Democrats engineered 80 anti-poverty programs that have not moved the needle one centimeter over 60 years.
Warren will not be elected, nor will Bernie, Biden or unqualified cute lil' gay guy Pete. Move on...to the sane, qualified adults in the room who actually WANT to represent 330 million Americans and have foreign policy skills to deal with 7.6 billion humans in 200 other nations.
2
Perhaps the worried billionaires (looking at you Mr. Rattner, since are you already pre-approved to published OpEds in this paper) can tell us what they would do to fix the obscene level of income inequality and wealth inequality in the USA within 5 years, and what they would do next if their prescriptions fail.
Congratulations, Mr. Bouie, you've managed to completely misrepresent Bill Gates and compromise my respect for you in the process.
2
Bernie and Warren are sure losers in the general election. Down ballot candidates will avoid them. The Dems will lose the House and the SC will be lost for basically infinity. The author assumes the US is a democracy. It is not. The electoral college not popular vote elect the president. The electoral college is heavily skewed in favor of the Republicans. The Republicans enjoy the luxury of nominating extremists. The Democrats do not. If the Republicans run an extremist, a white nationalist, they lose the states they would lose anyway. If the Dems run someone who can be labeled a socialist they will lose the states they need to win the electoral college.
2
I suggest that the NYT do an illustrative article that visually represents just how much a billion (of anything) actually is. It is such a hard concept to grasp that many people may not realize just how unimaginable a quantity it is.
"Who’s Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?"
If Warren's problem were just the billionaires, she would win in a cake walk. I am somewhere on the left and she worries the me but it's not her admirable commitment to addressing income inequality that gives me pause. That's her strong point. It's these three things:
1) She's too doctrinaire. Medicare for All is a perfect example. We really don't need to be telling the American people that this is the only way forward even if we think it's the best way because, well, it worries the American people. Better to get universal coverage and let people have a choice of a public option. And this will go over much better in the swing states we need to win not just to elect the President but to win Congress.
2) She has no interest in foreign affairs, to the point of seeming almost isolationist. This is (a) unrealistic, not unlike the point above and (b) dangerous. Going forward, we will face huge international challenges from climate change to Russian and Chinese aggression, to dealing with a nuclear Iran. Warren seems to show no interest, let alone competence, in this area.
3) She seems to have wandered into the divisive racial pandering lane. Her bizarre accusation that the police officer murdered Michael Brown, being only the latest and worst manifestation. She knows better than this. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
2
I've always liked Elizabeth Warren. Nevertheless I was initially pretty skeptical regarding her Presidential bid, but she's won me over and I'm now an enthusiastic supporter. Does that mean I agree with her 100% on everything? Absolutely not, but I've learned that the pie in the sky promises of political candidates always get tempered by the reality of actually doing the job. Warren as president will have to work with the rest of the government and, like all effective leaders, compromise on just about everything. She won't get everything she wants, but she can tilt the conversation and our nation's policies towards those goals. As a candidate Warren has shown her ability to grow and connect with the people. Her standing in the polls has risen constantly because the more people see her and listen to her and get to know her the better they like her. I read an article yesterday that said none of the candidates have gained traction, but I think Warren's steady and consistent climb gives the lie to that statement. The only thing standing in the way of Warren and the White House is the timidity of those Democrats who hope for some perfect sure-fire candidate to appear. We need to grow up and understand that there is no such thing and if Trump wins again it won't be the candidate's fault it will be ours.
2
What these billionaires fail to recognize is that wealth inequality is a key issue in the 2020 elections. It's right up there with getting the current self-proclaimed billionaire out of office. The people who support Sanders and/or Warren support them because of their stance on the wealthy paying their share in taxes. The only thing Bloomberg will accomplish is splitting Biden's moderate base. The rest of us have already made up our minds.
4
Yes, the income gap has a lot to do with investment income, but it also has everything to do with wages, which are on the other side of today's wildly imbalanced distribution scale. Profits should go to investors only after every employee is being paid at least a living wage and most are paid at least a "middle-class family" wage. The greater the share of profits going to workers, the larger and healthier the middle class, and the larger and healthier the middle class, the stronger the economy and country.
2
America's election process is sad in the extreme. The electoral college has killed any hope I ever had that America's best and brightest will lead the country to a better future. The elections are indeed rigged, in favor of both the ultra wealthy and the "low information" voter.
Sad!
3
"If Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion."
Oh god forbid! Can you imagine if everyone in America had health care and Bill Gates only had $13.9 billion? That's a nightmare scenario I don't even want to contemplate.
"Warren’s wealthy critics are right to be nervous."
Of course! Imagine only have 14 billion dollars! I'd be biting my fingernails to the bone. Somebody has to stop Warren! I don't want America's precious billionaires to feel the least bit nervous even for a second, poor darlings. Better the poor should defer lifesaving medical treatment. The rich are superior to the rest of us, you know!
4
Thank you, Patricia Cohen, for doing the math! So 10, 13, 40 billion dollars isn´t enough? One billion dollars isn´t enough? My god, look around you, guys, actually look at the people, at how they´re living, at their state of health, at their anxiety over whether they´ll have enough food tomorrow. Look at the planet you´ve ravaged and polluted, at the animals your world, the one you control, is killing off and making extinct. Is everything just the way it should be? Do you need a hundred billion, two hundred billion dollars?
The wealthy paid much, much higher taxes in the past and did just fine. You probably would too. And you could even put some time into proposing ways to make the best use of your fortunes. Public housing? Free public colleges? Getting to a fossil free economy in time to avert civilizational collapse? There´s a moral dimension that´s not addressed by your private philanthropy, whether or not you care to acknowledge it or look at it.
3
I would think it’s preferable to have a progressive President now rather than guns and pitchforks later, if you know what I mean.
2
Trump is bragging about all the jobs he created well the NYT’s article said recently there are jobs but no pay increases . What a fake Make America Great again slogan. His GOP supporters are really out of touch like him and you know you can only believe in a failed ideology the GOP’s for so long. Us Democrats know their way of thinking only benefits the billionaires. How about getting back into reality and vote responsibly Nov 2020. You will have 4 more years of despair and rampant pollution from the coal and fossil fuel industry if the corrupt electoral college sides with you.
1
A reminder to the "job creators": you have nothing without workers. No profits. Nothing.
3
Some people think that money legally earned belongs to them. EW is dreaming. Hallucinating actually. Personally, I deplore pandering candidates intent on a strategy of stoking envy.
1
Thank you Mr. Bouie, I couldn't agree more!
Total nonsense: billionaires have nothing to worry about; no Congress would pass Warren's plan.
Sanders and Warren are sure losers in a General Election.
Give away the store....really?
Tax the "rich".....really?
Free college....really?
Eliminate college debt.....really?
Health care for all....really?
No private insurance....really?
It's like a buffet of "free" goodies.
IF the Democrats nominate either one of them it will be 4 more years of Trump. The result will finally be to eliminate the "free lunch" portion of the Democratic party.
Amy and Pete!
Warren and Yang is what our young folks need and it’s what our children need
2
I am devastated to think that Bill Gates would actually vote for Donald Trump.Was he bluffing? I thought he was giving it all away (or mostly) anyway. What difference is there if he pays more in taxes now. He clearly understands the dangers of income inequality continuing.
1
Actually, most people who like capitalism are afraid of Elizabeth Warren.
1
Michael Bloomberg is toying with the idea of running, though he has zero chance of getting nominated or worse elected, because he knows who and what “vulture capitalists” are. People like Cooperman and Cuban and Sheldon Adelson and Leon Black and Stephen Schwarzman - all have plundered the economy and tax payers. They have contributed to the destruction of the middle class, thus the fear. American families don’t want to be governed by vulture capitalists or their values.
What do the mega-rich have to fear?
They can afford it.
2
The ultra wealthy, the Croesian's, all play the Zero Sum Game. The ZSM is really a zero time game because over a brief moment, the financial pie is fixed. It just goes to show how dumb they are. There are a few that are forward looking but they are in a distinct minority. They made their money in real estate or the markets. They added nothing to the common good and the long game.
The result is volatility that they can exploit. For a time it has worked but more and more the drag that they place on the economy is starting to show. Corporations are not investing in the future, instead spending their fortunes on stock buybacks. Why would they? Growth has slowed to a crawl. People don't have money to spend because the wealth gap has made their lives so unpredictable.
I don't know why anyone is "afraid" of Warren. She won't be able to get anything she's promising through Congress.
Which then, of course, begs the question:
Why would anyone vote for her?
Count ME out. I don't do "vote blue no matter who" because IT MATTERS WHO, and I don't trust someone who was a Republican until the age of 47, fifteen years into Reaganomics. I don't have the education that Warren has but I knew Reaganomics was bad by 1982 at the latest.
Warrens and Sanders can stay in the Senate if their constituents want them there, but if I live in Massachusetts or Vermont I wouldn't vote for either of them for the position of dog catcher.
"...then the billionaires will have to learn to live with the people’s will." No, they won't. They'll move.
The fact that billionaires get interviewed on tv about who should be president whereas, say, a bartender or nurse or mechanic does not is emblematic of the problem.
3
Couple of thoughts:
1) What exactly are the chances of getting a wealth tax through congress even if the Dems have both houses ? Do you honestly believe that Nancy Pelosi est. net worth 26 million or her fellow millionaires in Congress will agree to raise their own taxes? Not to mention does anyone honestly believe that Congress will raise taxes on the people who pay for their elections? And given that these are the same people who pay 6 digit honorariums for 20 minute speeches, and who offer such wonderfully lucrative jobs has lobbyists and directors when people leave Congress. Does anybody really believe that the congress will actually pass a wealth tax on their close personal friends ?
2) Capital is fluid these days folks! Most of what they are proposing to tax will be out of the country before the ink is dry on the law if it is passed. The assets will be sold to companies in tax free or limited countries whose ownership is unknown or irrelevant under international treaties. It works for Microsoft & Apple both of whom pay very little taxes ANYWHERE!
3) No a wealth tax is merely a fantasy, A way of getting elected not an honest proposition. The proposers KNOW it isn't going to happen or they are fools. Take your choice of which one it is.
This post-boomer recalls Morrison:
"The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the (money)
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Your ballroom days are over, baby"
1
"Another billionaire investor, Leon Cooperman, called Warren’s wealth tax a 'bankrupt concept.'"
The same Cooperman who wept when being interviewed recently, as he spoke of the impact of Warren's tax on him and his family.
Has Cooperman ever wept for the countless poor, homeless, working class, and middle class citizens who are barely making it?
Cooperman has inadvertently provided a vivid example of what's wrong with our egregious income inequality. He lives in a billionaire's bubble, insulated from real people.
Senator Warren, you have my full support as you pop those bubbles!
3
I have zero sympathy for these ultra-billionaires who "worry" about being taxed. Seriously? They have a fear they might "lose" a bit of something they could never, ever spend in their or their children's and probably down beyond their grand-children's entire lifetimes....?
Our entire middle class is being wiped out - which means that eventually the entire economy will just collapse. That's how short-sighted these billionaires are.
But worse is their "worry" about being taxed and losing some of "their" money. I've got news for them - until their meals come from eating what their children leave on their plates, when they debate for several minutes in the grocery store whether or not they can actually afford just one pack of gum this month, until they forgo any medical help for serious medical issues - until these people know what it's like to "live in my shoes" I have zero sympathy for them and their puny, worthless "complaint."
They have stolen from the middle class with their greed. They are selfish, not even realizing that it is the middle class that has gotten them where they are, from our actually paying taxes for roads, for bridges, for disaster relief, for libraries, for schools, for fire protection, for police - to our building and then buying their products.
So pay us for our labor. Pay back to our communities with your taxes. Stop being greedy - you never, ever "need" any billion of dollars.
1
People fear Warren because her ideas are dangerous. Not to just the rich, but also to the poor. If her ideas spread like a cancer on society then we will forever be changed for the worse. The masses of people will be told to envy the rich, their money and property and their land, then they will vote to take it all away and redistribute it amongst themselves. They will find themselves no happier in life and will only be conditioned to envy what others have rather than having the desire to improve themselves through their own hard work and self sacrifice. Our National motto will become - Ask not what you can do for yourself but what your votes can take away from others.
This populism from the left is so much worse than the populism and nationalism we are experiencing from the right.
She's a very capable public servant. Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren are both absolute geniuses and anyone would appreciate their input on virtually any subject. Ever know anyone in college who received 2 or 3 separate degrees and never seemed to ever study? You always assumed they were working on their Phd in "beer quality standards."
Actually you have two highly unusual people here. Geniuses who can, at an acceptable level, actually communicate with us normal people. Normally these are the folks that do all the leg work. The writing, the analyzing, the interpreting, the thinking. The only thing that shocks me about these two is they can answer questions on issues they care and have thought about and not grow obviously frustrated at the idiocy of some of the questions being thrown at them.
It's the "normal" guy that stands up there, as Mr. President, and speaks what they've written and thought up.
That being said, my 50 years of business and people experience has helped me decide folks can be too smart, just too far above the fray. It's a hard issue to describe. Say the complete 100% exact polar opposite of donald. One has to just live it and see it in leadership situations multiple times.
Why don't the super wealthy Democrats just hand over a huge portion of their wealth in the name of philanthropy instead of trying to pass laws to take it from them legally? The middle class won't suffer and everyone is happy with the same end results!
1
The real issue with Warren or Sanders is that their policies will inevitably raise taxes on the middle class. This violates and infringes on a fundamental aspect of life in America: individual liberty. We will be forced to hand over more of our money to the government just to help the less fortunate. This is just ridiculous nonsense. Why is it my responsibility to help them? I have my own problems to worry about. People who advocate for such policies fall under the delusion that this utopia can exist where people live happily ever after. Sorry no, reality is harsh and can be cruel, but the US is still a land of opportunity. Rather than incessantly griping about how the current system works against you, how about you spend more time looking for solutions to your own problems?
The trickle down theory. The great Republican economic theory. The leaders of that party change but they have the same answer every time. Cut taxes for the uber wealthy, it will work it's way down to the rest of us through growth and new business. It was begun in earnest during the Reagan reign and has not changed ever since.
So, since they swear by this tactic the results they have promised must have already happened. So, I am assuming, since the 1980's the middle class must have increased, economic security must have increased, people sense that the economy is working out well for the majority has already happened. After all, they said this is just simple basic economics, do this, get that.
Certain promises of trickle down have happened. The number of billionaires and millionaires has certainly increased. So that is a credit to them. But the trickle down part. Whoopsie! Middle class shrinking, bankruptcies soaring, personal debt at record levels, the number of people who can retire at 65 shrinking.
Now the trickle down proponents will have a million excuses on why their promises have not come true. Each tax cut was supposed to bring the rain of prosperity for the majority. It hasn't yet they keep asking for more tax cuts, rebooting the same promises, getting the same results. But of course the theory isn't wrong, lets do trickle down again!
2
"who want a more equal, more democratic economy" What about a more capitalist economy. One in which a few people own almost everything is feudalism -- not capitalism - i.e. an economy dominated by rent-seeking, not profit-making. According to capitalist theory, this can't happen -- competition and innovation should drive up wages faster than profits while driving out/minimizing rent seeking. But it can and does happen because the "haves' can game the political system to make it happen. The only cure is reverse gaming, hopefully without the need for a big war or other catastrophe (as some have suggested is required -- e.g. Mancur Olsen).
Warren's maximum wealth tax is 3%, not 6% as the article states. Even at 3%, the rich will get richer -- and that's OK, since it will keep all but the greediest on board. Any competent investor can get better than a 3% return on capital.
1
I am not a billionaire. But it does concern me that Warren is a little cavalier about killing the horse that pulls our wagon in the USA. Many countries boast a passionate public sector. Many of those countries are basket case, failed states with dying populations. Few countries have the commercial success of the US. The tail should not wag the dog. But talking about reallocating trillions out of private hands into yet-unproven public management is likely to be very destructive. Billionaires can all move offshore within days. They would have no reason to reside in the US if it costs them, say, 200 million a year in new taxes. Those numbers are pure fantasy.
1
Even with Warren's potential tax, the uber-rich will always have a seat at the table--the one where leaders take their phone calls and they can influence policy-making, something that 99.9% of us will never have.
The main problem I have with Warren's billionaires' tax is that I neither trust the government to spend this newfound money wisely nor trust them to redistribute it equitably.
When are billionaires going to acknowledge who made them rich?
We did .. and it is time to pay us back some of our money.
@John
Stop. You didn't make anybody rich. You had nothing at risk; you worked your 9-5; and you cashed your pay check. You got exactly what you were promised, and exactly what you agreed to accept. Now you want more.
Never going to happen
Article I, Section 8.
Bouie seems to have found his niche at NYT--and just in the nick of time. This is a devastating take-down because of its mild, neutral tone. More of him, please.
43,000 lose their life every year in the U.S. due to not getting healthcare due to inability to afford health insurance. A life is equal how much in taxes?
2
Bernie promised free education, Warren countered with healthcare. Both of their plans have their benefits and need work, but it seems that too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires like the idea of change a lot more than the reality. Meanwhile the Republicans have no problem at all spending countless billions on propping up regimes and paying defense contractors and protecting oil pipelines as our debt soars, and at that Americans won't even blink.
4
Warren is smart and I find myself agreeing with much of what she says and stands for (or at least appears to stand for). However, we cannot survive another four years of the vile, filthy, corrupt, and inept Trump machine. Nominating Warren, who will be labeled left-wing radical and will never shake that appearance, will hand Trump a victory and destroy the country.
It's wake-up time for the Democrats who have a seemingly endless, almost child-like ability to botch elections that should be easily won thereby handing the Presidency to inept, negative fools. Please, please... not again!!
138
@John Wilson
Right, because nominating the un-likeable centrist Democratic candidate in 2016 worked out so well.
Trump and the GOP will attack WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is and find some way to tear into their support. The fact that this thought doesn't occur to people never ceases to amaze me.
And let's not forget, if it's a centrist, Trump's buddy in the Kremlin will be sure to sow division in the party and push the inevitable Green party candidate to peel off the progressive vote, or else just get them to stay home.
59
@John Wilson@John Wilson
Warren is leading Trump in just about every poll you can think of. She would beat him.
32
@John Wilson So be it. I am not interested in a Neo-liberal republican light candidate and I am not going to vote for one regardless who they are running against. I didn't vote for Clinton because that is what she is and I am not going to vote for Biden or any of the other Neo-liberal democrats. Maybe it would be better if democrats like you stop nominating terrible candidates like Clinton or Biden
27
For the nay sayers I have this. Let the rich leave. Good riddance if they are not willing to pay their fair share. Stop groveling at their feet. It's disgusting and you appear as greedy and sick and they behave. No one's pension will get hurt. That's just not true. You will have more money in your pocket to help your family. That is true. The uber rich can live anywhere on the planet and guess what. They'll still want to live here and have business here. Don't drink the "poor me" cool aid of the uber rich. If you don't have at least 10 million in savings, we aren't talking about you. Time to go back to how America was made great. Progressive taxes!!!
2
A lot of people are "afraid of" Warren. She is a condescending and pedantic elitist pandering to the far left after a career defending corporate interests and teaching and the bastion of privledge-wrapped-in-"woke"-rhetoric Harvard. Beyond that and her loose, convenient claims to minority status, she advocates policies that will not work - have never worked (although they have been tried often and often in smaller, more homogeneous countries). Under Warren we do not so much fear we would be over taxed - tax increases on the wealthiest have many supporters including billionaires- we fear we'd spend our lives "at the DMV," dealing with oppressive regulatory requirements, bureaucratic labyrinths constructed by elitists like Warren who purport to know best and attempt to fine tune our worlds to their values and tastes. And labeling opponents as afraid or evoking gender does nothing to advance fair, critical thinking in this election season - it's not fair or factual - and it exacerbates Trumps name calling and lashing out.
14
@TJ she worked for everything she ever had. Her professorship was built from a middle class background and based on her expertise in helping people with bankruptcy law. I would take her over crave sellouts to the oligarchs any day. And I am not alone.
4
@TJ She spent most of her teaching career in Texas -- is that a bastion of privilege too? She didn't get to Harvard until years and years later. Her interest in bankruptcy law, and in the effects of going bankrupt on ordinary people, goes back decades, to the beginning of her career. She is absolutely not a child of privilege; she grew up lower-middle class in Oklahoma, and her parents struggled at times to keep a roof over their heads. She has never once claimed to be a minority; she has only said that she is descended, through numerous generations, from a Native American, which has turned out to be true. Finally, you might think of her as pedantic (I don't), but she is the opposite of condescending. She's a warm, down-to-earth, real person, the polar opposite of Trump, a bloviating egomaniac whose one and only concern is for himself and his posterity -- he's the personification of Ozymandias. Elizabeth Warren really cares for people because she doesn't consider herself to be better than anyone else.
3
If Warren is elected and starts taxing the wealthy to the hilt they will not be hurt personally but the people who might work for them will. When taxes go up there is less money available for business expansion and unemployment goes up. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Yes, I am afraid, and I am not a billionaire.
She is unelectable. She is a One-Trick Pony. When asked how she will pay for any/all of her programs, her only response is-- Tax the Billionaires. Really?!?! A middle schooler running for class president could come up with something a bit stronger, a bit more realistic. Nobody is against billionaires paying more taxes-- in fact a lot of billionaires including Gates, Buffett, and others have been publicly saying so for years-- but she continually puts all of her progressive eggs in that one basket.
Our country is being destroyed by one of the most violently stupid individuals to have ever walked the earth, and enjoys the unwavering support of over 40% of voters, yet Warren (and her "progressive" fans) believes she can win by promising Reparations for African American descendants of slavery, restoring voting rights for felons and completely dismantling health care delivery as we know it with her Medicaid for All plan. Really?!?! How do you think those positions will go over in the South, Swing states, frankly anywhere?
Newsflash to Warren and her naive supporters: Get elected first, then enact noble plans. That's what Republicans have been doing for the last 40 years. You win over the masses with a palatable message-- and then you enact your party's platforms. An incompetent, corrupt and almost impeached president stands in their way, and yet Democrats shoot themselves in the feet with bazookas. Yes, I am afraid.
3
$13.9 billion instead of $97 billion? $48 instead of $160?
I think I'd be fine with that, knowing that our ALL of our children would be better educated, that their parents would find it easier to make ends meet due to modern universal health coverage instead of living in constant fear of bankruptcy if a medical tragedy should befall them or their child. Knowing that our infrastructure - highways, drinking water, public transit, etc. - were all up to 21st century levels instead of the decrepit state they're in now. Knowing that our government was leading the way, hand in hand with business, in the move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy to help slow and reverse the slide to climate calamity.
Am I missing something here? When Gates first started Microsoft with Paul Allen the top marginal income tax rate was 70%. Did they look at that and just throw up their hands and say 'no way, not worth it'? No! In fact, that high rate enabled the government to put R&D money into inventing what would become the internet, which eventually launched their business - and scores of others - into even higher profitability.
3
First, I have a real hard time feeling sorry for these poor poor billionaires. Oh no, you would ONLY have 13 billion left? How will you ever manage to survive??!?
Second, we have had even higher taxes than what Warren is proposing on excessive wealth in the past, and you know what? Those were some of this countries most prosperous years in the past century.
So, if we we want to (forgive me) "make America great again", then it has to start with higher taxes on the ultra-rich.
6
People like Elizabeth Warren make between $300,000 and $3million a year and have net worths between $3million and $30million. Extremely privileged in relation to the vast majority of Americans. Yet Warren gives herself and her circle a pass on paying for her plans. And she wonders why working class people don’t like her any more than billionaires.
1
@Letsbefrank
Nice try. The income tax and capital gains tax changes she proposes actually would affect people like her.
Bloomberg is the Alpha and Omega of the billionaires. And he’s on the good guys side?
This tells us about class, not Trump. Circle the wagons boys, the pitchforks are a comin.
so now suddenly Warren wants to be the new Bernie, guess what, Bernie is still there. she is too fake.
1
@cesar leon Did you miss Warren's many years of hard and dedicated work trying to regulate the banking industry? Guess so. Warren is a far more expansive candidate than Sanders, and has actually gotten more concrete things done in her political tenure. Added bonus: she's a woman.
3
So the billionaires are scared? Good. Bill Gates, the 2nd richests person on earth worth $107 billion, Bill Gates could give every person on the planet $10 and still have more than $30 billion left over. Better yet he or Bloomberg or Bezos could buy Fox News and really do something good for the country.
2
Why would someone on poverty feel this ersatz Robin Hood?
I am not wealthy, but I am not an idiot. Her math doesn’t work, and when we go down the road to single-payer healthcare, some form of Green New Deal, and so forth, it will rapidly becomes apparent that EVERYONE will be paying more taxes. We need to address healthcare and the environment, but her plans are far to radical and will not prevail in a general election against Trump, or anyone else for that matter.
1
Who is afraid of her?
My wallet
@AutumnLeaf
Lucky you.
The greedy .0001% are nothing more than greed junkies, there is not enough money in the world to satisfy their addiction.
1
$13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion? That would have been taking the bread out of his children's mouths! And enforcement of tax laws!? quelle horreur! Jacobins at the Gates -- er, gates.
2
Warren is a woman attacking mega-rich white moguls. How dare she! She is still the brightest light in the Democratic room, and if people will simply listen to her instead of the rich and powerful people who like EF HUTTON, seem to garner headlines when they have little of significance to say, we will be just fine. She has shown she deserves a chance. Integrity, drive, intelligence, and experience - not big money. It is so hard to decide?
3
well now... if Bill Gates is fine with doubling his tax rate, then what's the problem?
2
Who’s Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?
Every racket we have.
- Wall Street fraudster.
- Mega banks CEOs,especially Jamie Dimon.
- Big Pharma CEOs.
- Defense Contractors CEOs who never have enough (
they want more trillions for space force)
- Insurance CEOs,especially medical.
- Silicon Valley sham Gig ( FB, Amazon,Uber, Lyft, Airbnb)
- Jeff Bezos , Michael Bloomberg and their Super-Elite club.
And they will do everything in their power to stop her. Not only to keep their billions, they want to multiply ten times over.
Bezos want to buy Manhattan.
2
The more accurate answer to the question "who is afraid of Elizabeth Warren" is a whole lot of Americans rich, middle class and poor, because to be accurate her slogan should be changed to "I have a really expemsive bad plan for that but don't worry, I won't be able to get anything done so there's nothing to fear"
Biden or Buttegieg really should scare more people who fear realistic progressive policies, since unlike Warren, they might actually get stuff done.
A lot of vague claims by the1 % to yell BOO! at the rest of us.
I think Elizabeth Warren can turn this country into what it once was! ...........An arctic region covered with ice!
1
Things are progressing nicely. See you at the election after-party featuring all-evening replays of CNN anchors bawling like the infants they are.
1
I'm not afraid of her.
She just cannot win the 4-5 swing states necessary to dislodge the current fraud from the White House.
And that is JOB1 in 2020.
2
@Will.
"She just cannot win the 4-5 swing states necessary to dislodge the current fraud from the White House."
Still 12 months from the general election this statement is borderline meaningless.
Stated on 9/1/2019: "The Nationals cannot win the World Series".
See how ridiculous?
Bill Gates wasn't kidding.
Confiscate! Confiscate! blah, blah, blah
Socialism has impoverished more people than it’s possible to count. It’s a demonstrable failure.
Why would anyone support it?
And don’t blather on about Warren being a “capitalist”. Just because she self-identifies as one doesn’t make it so.
1
It would be refreshing if one of these white billionaires would say something like, "Trump's racism and misogyny are disqualifying and I'll support whoever the Democrats nominate."
3
@chemteach
Yeah, right?!?
Amazing how when $5 or 10 billion out of their $50+ billion fortunes are threatened, everything else seems trivial.
Redistributing some of the wealth away from billionaires and into the rest of society will not only decrease the amount of money billionaires have but will also increase the competition they'll face from others who will have gained the means to offer attractive alternatives to their oppressive business models; and this is surely part of their resistance.
When are billionaires going to acknowledge who made them rich?
We did .. and it is time to pay us back some of our money.
1
One commenter said “Wealthy Americans often say ‘Warren and Sanders can’t win’ when they really mean ‘I don’t want Warren or Sanders to win’ “.
I’m a life long Democrat. My problem with Warren and Sanders has nothing to do with their tax plans, or not wanting them to win. It has everything to do with their electability with moderates and undecideds. Those who held their nose and voted for Trump because they didn’t like Hillary. I’d like to see a progressive in the WH but this time around the single most important factor for me isn’t policy. It’s who has the best chance to get rid of trump and I don’t see that with either of these two.
3
"The only response worth making to this idea is to laugh."
Actually, no. The only proper response is to vote for a candidate who honestly wishes to serve the majority of working American men and women, rather than serving only the .01%.
2
Elizabeth Warren's health plan:
'American health care is inefficient, monopolistic, costly, bureaucratic, and unevenly distributed?
'Great! Then we'll just have to pay trillions and trillions more for it so everyone can have it!'
Elizabeth Warren is too extreme until you actually listen to her ideas. As more voters get past the labels and headlines and actually listen, she continues to rise in the polls. Too many in the media are busy chasing ratings and 'fairness' in their reporting. The false equivalences in reporting between Democrats and Republicans should receive the 'pants on ride' rating. Republicans have fallen off the deep end and are unrecognizable as a balance needed in a functional democracy; they are totally corrupt and immoral. The media, Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, etc. are clueless on the rage building among citizens. Our democracy and capitalist systems are seriously broken.
2
What we need today is the reincarnation of FDR. Wealthy, enough that the other wealthy of the day thought he was one of them. Suprise, he turned around the economy and taxed the hell out of the wealthy, AND created a middle class that was the envy of the world for generations. It all got wittled away by the wealthy and Republicans. The first, a Democrat, JFK started lowering the tax on the wealthy. No doubt, his father whispering in his ear, “I got you elected, now lower my taxes!” FDR, the man my dad thought was the greatest President, and now I understand.
4
Quiz question: there is another, much older, refrain that has taken hold in many countries over the past centuries that (like the current media antipathy to billionaires) goes like this: "those people are greedy - they have too much - they care too much about money and not their fellow man - something must be done - they need to be taught a lesson". Can anyone guess (a) who that other group is, and (b) what happened when that populist anger provoked government to act?
Well, why don't Gates, Cuban, Bloomberg, Dimon, et. al. get together and propose a tax plan that's fair to the wealthy AND that reverses the trend toward income inequality? If they're not smart enough to come up with a plan, they're certainly wealthy enough to hire someone who is.
4
I agree with everything except for the conclusion. I believe the the power of suggestion and influence that money can have can actually change voters mind not in a democratic way but in a biased and unfair way. The influence that FOX for example has on weak minds is such that a lier was elected and same can happen with potential democratic voters.
2
We live in a democracy except for the fact that voters in sparsely populated states have votes that are worth several times more than voters in densely populated states. Therefore, the wealthy can much more easily target the citizens of the sparsely populated states in a successful scheme to maintain the plutocracy that we live in.
4
I support her now for wanting to ban fracking and going after these billionaires. What are they good for? They Trump have not paid taxes all his life , they don’t serve in the military ,they don’t want affordable health care or apartments for the American. They support coal and fossil fuel use which is destroying our air and water. If they and the wealthy churches in America had been paying taxes yearly we could have had a great affordable health plan and affordable housing by now. She is right make them pay higher taxes and if they don’t like put them in jail and no country club prisons hard labor like the average man would get.
6
One thing is certain, and even the least imaginative billionaire must agree, if our country continues on the course set by the Reagan administration, the disparity between the 1% and the bottom 99% will continue to aggravate. And if that happens there will be a real revolution in our country.
6
When rich folks start warning the rest of us about the "dangers" of voting for Elizabeth Warren, it only confirms my belief that her proposals have the best chance of reducing the obscene disparity in income and standard of living in this country. Keep up the fear-mongering, billionaires! I like Warren more and more.
12
People need to visit areas outside Manhattan, San Francisco and Seattle - and see that this is a politically moderate country. Warren or Sanders will likely lose to Trump, thus ending our lovely experiment in democracy. Since a wealth tax is likely unconstitutional and would take an unimaginable Democratic senate majority, why not chose a candidate who can effect real and doable tax policy changes - increase capital gains, raise dividend tax rates, and especially reinstate the inheritance tax?
4
Really, shouldn't these billionaires be more worried about the revolution that is coming if the exponential curve on income inequality isn't reversed?
Any student of history knows that the revolution always comes. And it never ends well for the wealth class.
At least Warrens' proposals mostly bend the wealth accumulation curve (and other alternative that could also work), rather than breaking society. But something has to be done about income inequality. The current trajectory is not sustainable, and history tells us the result will be bloody instability and revolution.
6
@Jeff Revolution was a threat when travel required months and moving your wealth required mules and horses. Nowadays you get into your private jet and you are in Monaco in 7 hours. Guess who suffers from the revolution these days - poor people. Look at the countries that had revolutions lately - middle class and rich are gone, only poor are staying.
For Decades I have said "Talk taxes first. Then decide what to do with the money. Not the other way around. The primary reason why America is now the most unequal of democracies is the Ronald Reagan Tax Cut Revolution and the whole idea that government is just a drag on the economy and should be greatly reduced if not eliminated. America's Christians have the attitude that secular government is bad for their religion. They are correct, as Bible idolatry can't stand the test of modern ethics. I have very little sympathy for a religion that is destroying America.
But, about taxes: Contrary to the years of lying about us liberals, the great majority of us are capitalists like Elizabeth Warren. We just recognize that whether the tax systems of America are progressive or regressive - makes all the difference. For some decades after FDR America had progressive taxes. Everyone's wealth increased. But the rich did not get wealthier by leaps and bounds. Since the Reagan Revolution and with every tax cut there-after, America's tax system - every state, the feds, and the District of Columbia have become regressive - favoring the wealthy. Now, forty years after Reagan, there is more upward mobility in highly taxed France and eleven other democracies than in America. The American Dream is nearly dead and royalty have returned to dominate our government.
6
According to the author’s calculations, even if the idea of the wealth tax becomes law, all the fat cats will remain fat. So what’s the problem?
4
For Decades I have said "Talk taxes first. Then decide what to do with the money. Not the other way around. The primary reason why America is now the most unequal of democracies is the Ronald Reagan Tax Cut Revolution and the whole idea that government is just a drag on the economy and should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.
That, plus the attitude that secular government is bad for the national religion, and you have a recipe for the elimination of all safe-guards Americans have against the constant threat of the wealthy. Then the Republican Supreme Court decided to equate money with protected free speech - very bad move.
But, about taxes: Contrary to the years of lying about us liberals, the great majority of us are capitalists like Elizabeth Warren. We just recognize that whether the tax systems of America are progressive or regressive - makes all the difference. For some decades after FDR America had progressive taxes. Everyone's wealth increased. But the rich did not get wealthier by leaps and bounds.
Since the Reagan Revolution and with every tax cut there-after, America's tax system - every state, the feds, and the District of Columbia have become regressive - favoring the wealthy. Now, forty years after Reagan, there is more upward mobility in highly taxed France and eleven other democracies than in America. The American Dream is nearly dead and royalty have returned to dominate our government.
Everyone is focusing on the billionaires because Elizabeth Warren knows that it is more palatable to say tax the billionaires. The reality is that her plans will negatively hurt those who are not in the 0.0000001% but really those two income families that are in the top 25%, but are not even millionaires.
The top 25% already pays a tremendous amount in taxes (largely on earned income). Under her plan she will make it next to impossible for these people to maintain their standard or living, make their mortgage payments (especially as home values plummet), save for retirement, and save for college (won't quality for any aid or free tuition).
The focus needs to shift away from the billionaires and to those high income families that also have very high expenses and will not receive relief from her plans. No one really cares about the billionaires because they are not in touch with reality. What she is proposing can bankrupt millions of hard working families who are getting by now, but will be struggling once her crazy high taxes kick in to support her trillions of the dollars of plans. The wealth tax is likely not constitutional and, assuming it is, once the money dries up from draining all the billionaires accounts (assuming they do not figure out how to avoid it), who will support the astronomical cots?
3
The people complaining most about Warren's plan either don't have any money, so her proposed policies wouldn't effect them, or they are greedy tax-dodgers like Trump and Amazon, who want to keep the gravy train going; at the expense of the American people.
Warren is about corporations and the uber-rich paying their fair share. Most are paying no taxes with loopholes and write-offs.
The media frenzy to discredit Warren and the Democrats frenzy to discredit Warren are about keeping the power at the top.
Warren wants to rebuild the middle class. The playing field it too uneven.
Warren Buffet has repeatedly said he should be paying more taxes. Other billionaires have said so too.
What other candidate is talking about rebuilding the middle taxes? None. They are all too busy taking jabs at Warren.
3
The Rich always fear what will give them less power. The more the billionaire class whines.. the closer I look at Sen Warren and her policies. And Bloomberg getting into the race with Gov Patrick thinking about it, confirms my suspicions.. Fear of a BRIGHT and ARTICULATE woman scares them the most.
3
Could someone please tell me what you can do with 50 billion dollars that you cannot do with 10 billion?
8
A billion dollars is a lot of money! It’s hard to even conceptualize how much that is! The fact that we’re having this conversation is good!
Some thoughts for Sen Warren to reframe her argument for the electorate. Big structural change and revolution are too easily demonized:
1) Step 1 is a rollback of the Trump Billionaire Boys Club Tax Cut.
2) Step 2 is to increase the marginal tax rate to Reagan levels for those making $1-2MM in income. If Bill Gates is willing to pay 2X what he’s paid, that’s a start.
3) The wealth tax is a form of “trickle down” economics! Studies show that it never works because the marginal spending never happens. Instead of being locked away in a billionaire’s net worth, it is spent and creates a powerful multiplier effect! Perhaps some good economists can calculate this effect upon GDP?
4) Articulate WIIFM... “what’s in it for me?” for all the different levels of tax payers in a simple way. I think folks will begin to get it then.
P.S. From a policy standpoint, it seems to me that tax policy should be more precision-based by geography. It seems that if you live in a high cost zip code, your deductions would be proportionately higher. And vice versa. Ditto minimum wages. The cost of living range is really disparate. This may help with worker mobility, and create more fairness.
1
Warren knows very well (as does Bill Gates, and his fellow billionaires) that her "tax the rich" platform is exciting in the moment, but little chance of advancing very far in Congress. But, that's the point, isn't it?
2
Warren's rhetoric has ruffled a lot of gilded feathers and with good reason: she puts her finger on the spot. Ouch! Unfortunately, we will never be able to "fill her prescription" for the growing inequality that is chronically ailing our nation, but only if we aim for the impossible can we achieve the possible. If she gets only part of what she is promising done as POTUS, we will have moved in the right direction. Godspeed.
4
It's been tried elsewhere and the conventional wisdom is that wealth taxes invite capital flight. Maybe it'll be different this time.
As to the depressive affect it may have on the the economy, maybe the price for Gulfstreams and yachts will drop but just think of it as open market price discovery--what's more capitalist than that? Same goes for public companies that have been bubblicious under storied founders with a concentration of shares. Forgive me but I'm not especially worried about Amazon or Tesla or even Walmart shareholders. And if by some freak of nature I should wake up with a $32 mm net worth I'd scare up the $5,000 surcharge with a smile.
2
Warren's wealth tax plan will result in repatriation of individual wealth and redomiciliation of companies. Look what has happened in France and other countries that attempted the same thing. Her other "prong" to fund medicare for all is to collect from companies the employer-funded portion of health care for their employees. This will result in companies getting worse health insurance for their employees so that they can have to pay less in premiums to the government. It also penalizes "responsible" employers who provide benefits to employees vs. those like Walmart who game the system, leaving vast numbers unemployed.
Warren's approaches are too simplistic and try to levy a one size fits all- good luck taxing Bezos, Gates, et al. They don't get W-2 like you and me. You know who will end up paying for these programs- you and me. I am fiscally responsible and try to be careful where i spend. I see most people around me have nicer cars, phones etc. because they must upgrade. College kids are living better than i ever did in college. Two jobs during the year and a full time one during the summer. Paid off all of my student loans... Can't say i am a big fan of debt repayment. What's next- are we going to pay off their credit card debt?
2
When taxes are reduced many people pay in either lower services or poorer outcomes. When taxes are raised in a manner expressed by Warren and Sanders, those who benefited from the lower taxes want to take their toys and go home and not share what this great nation has given them.
Since they are not willing to share then a wealth tax, which really only affect a minority of wealthy, is only fair to regain what was lost in services and outcomes by lowering taxes.
To suggest that a tax will somehow cripple the economy is simple a scare talk to the ignorant. The only thing it will do is reduces the massive pile of cash that has been hoarded and not put to work in the economy - the economy that provided this wealth in the first place - and allow it to be used to help the nation as a whole with debt reduction, infrastructure repair, investment in the future for green energy, and so much more.
So either watch the cash pile grow with the many wealthy this tax would affect or vote to change that and allow our country to begin renovating itself from such a long long negligent set of care-takers.
3
What matters today is not a tax plan, a healthcare, or education plan.
What matters today -- is ELECTING DEMOCRATS. Why? Because Trump and Republicans IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION AND IGNORE DEMOCRATOC PROCESS THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON.
America used to lead the world by democracy & RULE OF LAW. Where oh where are Republicans and Trump taking America, and the world?
How many voters think Americans can survive 4 more years of Trump and Republicans?
1
As a upper income middle class family I feel that our taxes will go up and we will get less with Sanders and Warren. Instead of free college for everyone, it will be free only for low income earners (like New York). We are not rich. We live below our means and still are afraid that our kids will end up with large amount of college loans. So we will end up loosing. We are staying home if Warren and Sanders are on democratic ticket.
2
Rising inequality is inevitable in capitalism.
Assume a capitalist State can tax its capitalist class (i.e. the "rich") at will.
Even in that scenario, it would be patent that the rest of society would receive these taxes back either in monetary form or in a monetizable good (i.e. a commodity/service). Either way, the rich will receive these taxes back in money-form, either by selling their goods on the market or by selling their goods to the State (in the form of the necessary ingredients to assemble a public service).
If that's the case, then the only gain for the working classes would be a rise in life quality and a rise in class consciousness (i.e. they gain more political power/influence through the agency of the State). But if that happens, then the costs of labor power will rise, eroding the profit rates of the capitalist class. The capitalist class will then "react", by forcing the State to dismantle its universal public services (healthcare, education) to a minimum and lower the taxes again. The cycle will then reboot.
Nobody could wreck the economy as badly as George W Bush did. A Sanders or Warren victory would be a boon for everyday people. Granted, getting one of them elected would be an uphill battle. The health-care and pharmaceutical industries will stop at almost nothing to defeat them. However, either could win. After all, they would be up against a man who has deluded himself into thinking that the phone call that sparked his impeachment was “perfect.” Who wants another four years of that sort of insanity?
Classic San Diego based isolated alarm thinking. I'm from LA and I've heard it all my life. Not particularly original thinking. Notice how few endorsements.
MOST people are not even IN the stock market in any way these days. Look around you.
2
What many Americans find attractive in both Warren and Bernie is the truth they are speaking to power. Personalities aside, most voters recognize that the economic system is stacked in favor of billionaires. They always win, while the average person has to struggle to make ends meet. In this Warren and Sanders are correct.
Whoever we elect as president must work to bring about some fairness to the present system crippled by the out-sized influence of the billionaire class. Both political parties cater to these men to the detriment of the well being of the rest of the nation. Whatever the mechanism that is used to pry some additional taxes from this group it must be done in the interests of the rest of the nation. The system needs to change so that it is fair to all of us.
1
A recent opinion piece in the NY Times claimed a wealth tax would be unconstitutional. Perhaps that is true. In any case, two things that should be done to decrease income inequality are to raise the highest tax bracket to at least 50% and to tax capital gains as regular income. Warren has put forth some excellent ideas but has taken soaking the rich to the extreme which has in effect led to her offering the middle class a free lunch. In Europe the middle class is willing to pay higher taxes to get benefits such a free health care and free college tuition so I don't see why middle class tax payers in the US shouldn't be willing to pay high taxes to pay for such things. If Democrats are so afraid to ask the middle class to pay higher taxes then they shouldn't be promising such generous social programs. There has be some realistic relationship between social welfare state programs and taxes. I think Warren is avoiding this reality to get a boost in the polls but she may have gone too far.
2
I'm a middle-class teacher and afraid of Elizabeth Warren because she can't beat Trump. At this point, I could care less about taxing the rich. I'm more interested is saving the Republic.
3
I have a friend who is a trust fund baby. He is a 40 year old now with no sense of economic reality. In a recent conversation he warned that if Warren was elected she would take all of our money. Insert eye roll here.
Unlike my friend who inherited many millions I have worked as a teacher all of my life. I have always been frugal and a careful investor. I was able to pay for my children's educations. Now I have a comfortable retirement but by no measure am I wealthy. However this young friend cannot see the world around him.
I am not concerned with the doom and gloom forecast by gops and some wealthy people. I know that when it comes to economic plans or health plans or education plans our new president will have to deal with congress and the end result will be a compromise.
I look forward to a compromise that takes into consideration those members of our society who do not have a trust fund to fall back on.
2
I'm terribly sorry Jamelle but I believe that neither Warren, or "Pocahontas" as she will be known if she is the nominee, nor Sanders, or "crazy Bernie" as he will be known if he is the nominee, can beat trump. While I don't think Bloomberg will win the nomination I also don't what is motivating him is, at 77 years of age, a concern that Warren will tax him into poverty if she is elected. I think he is honestly worried that both Warren and Sanders will lose against trump and that Biden can't get the nomination.
This new story the more delusional among the economic populists have concocted about Warren that "billionaires" are shaking in their boots and that means they take the possibility of her presidency seriously is simply nonsense. On the other hand the more "liberal" among the billionaire class take the possibility of her being the nominee very seriously and that scares them- as it should everyone.
5
Whatever his views on taxes, the fact that Bill Gates would consider voting for Donald Trump makes me lose respect for Gates.
4
How was the great middle class explosion occur? We are starting to resemble the conditions of the late 19th century, early 20th century. Vast amounts of the countries wealth concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the countries population. How did things change?
First step was the anti-trust laws. This step was fsavagely fought by the powers that be. This law was called socialism by all the mega wealthy families. These people used their vast wealth to buy politicians, control the newspapers and demonize the progressives who fought to break up their monopolies.
Think about the many things we take for granted today. The 8 hour day, the minimum wage, overtime pay, basic worker safety laws, social security, medicare, the ability to retire and not spend our last days in poverty. All of these were instigated through government and the business community fought everyone of these proposals tooth and nail calling it, as usual,socialism, claiming that it would ruin our economy. And after these laws were passed the economy didn't collapse , we had the greatest explosion of the middle class in our history, and we did all this with a progressive income tax with a top rate in the 70% range.
Remember all of this when the oligarchs re-run their favorite propaganda routine of making the argument that it is better for the country to have more and more of the wealth of this country concentrated in the hands of the 1%
4
Usually corporate America operates behind the scenes. But since the the Koch brothers campaign juggernaut and the Trump's "for sale" sign on all government agencies things have changed.
The corporate agenda is now out front and in our face everyday. Yet, because of corporate control of the media we understand very little about what's really going on.
A corporation is legal creation designed to consolidate the interests of investors. But when those interests are regulated even to a small degree by the state, the response of the corporation is to seize control of the state.
The imperative of every corporation is to maximize the profits of investors. And when corporations keep getting bigger and bigger and the investor class gets smaller and wealthier their capacity for control of the state increases dramatically.
Today 10% of the population owns 85% of corporate stock. But 1% actually owns the lions share of that 85%. And since Citizen's United the congress is now owned by private interests.
This sounds extreme, but a study by Princeton political scientists verified that when there are differences between special interests and a representative's constituents, our members of congress overwhelmingly support the special interest.
Senator Warren's campaign pledge to rein in some of this power has caused corporate America do declare war on Warren and Bernie.
The 2020 election has now become a contest not about the presidency, but whether we will even have a democracy.
1
I have yet to hear what Sanders and Warren would give to the people who played by the rules and paid off their student debt.
4
@Carl LaFong Sanders and Warren will have a "plan" to give you a tax credit for what you paid, while other debtors will call you a chump.
Everyone should be afraid of Elizabeth Warren. Her scheme will work for a short time, but its going to destroy investment and eventually the money in billionaires hands is going to get a lot smaller. That fact has even been documented on these pages. Great, inequality is reduced...but how are her programs going to be paid for at that point? Guess what, the government is going to come after the middle class, including the lower middle class and working class. I sure hope Bloomberg gets some traction.
3
@Dave Yep, as time passes and the government maw demands more of our capital, the threshold for the wealth tax will be lowered by Congress and inflation to take in the middle class.
One of the good things about the 2017 income tax changes was the elimination of the AMT (alternative minimum tax) for a very large fraction of taxpayers. Remember the AMT? It started out in 1969 as a well intentioned remedy to catch some very wealthy taxpayers who had zero tax liability due to large tax deductions and preferences. Over time, however, primarily due to a lack of inflation indexing, the AMT grew to affect a very large number of taxpayers. Well, if Warren gets her way, the wealth tax plan will affect all of us eventually. It'll be like the AMT on steroids. Most of us will be paying it.
As some have pointed out, just because you elect Warren as President you are not appointing a new dictator. Members of Congress are generally quite well off and are not going to pass laws that disadvantage themselves. That is, her agenda, even with a blue wave that wins both houses of Congress, is mostly not going anywhere.
But I say to you, symbolism matters. Putting a smart person in the WH with such an agenda is the first step towards fixing the wealth inequality in this country. And please, don't define her by that one item. Have you looked at her other proposals like prison reform? Every position she takes is clean, logical, and pointed at making this democratic republic better.
She's my horse and has been for a long time.
3
I'm beginning to think Warren and Sanders are DNC 'plants', harping on radical ideas until even liberal Democrats bolt for a moderate like Bloomberg. Think about it. There are just as many, probably more, very wealthy Democrats than wealthy Democrats (Obama, Clintons, Bidens are all worth millions, or tens of millions or more), and those very wealthy Democrats haven't the slightest intention of paying materially higher taxes.
I am not a billionaire and I do not support the tax on the super rich. The implementation of the very costly programs that the extreme left is calling for would: cause the federal deficit to hyper explode and drive a wedge through the country since far less than the majority is asking for such programs. Most wealthy people are wealthy because they are very smart, very hard working and willing to sacrifice to get there. Bloomberg is all of the above and he has significant government experience. We are lucky that such a person would want to take the job.
4
Why doesn't the government just print more money. Give enough to everyone to pay for food, healthcare, housing and college. If everyone gets the same dollar amount and not a percentage of current wealth then the poor comes out on top, after all paper and ink are cheap.
This is what a recent (west coast) grad told me during a conversation regarding the economy!
This is also the reason we don't need everyone going to college.
3
Mr. Bouie makes a very important point, one not mentioned often enough. "Even if the wealth tax never became law, a Warren administration would still take a hard line on financial regulation, consumer protection and tax enforcement." It's the same with the rest of her plans. Passing any of them through Congress, even a House and Senate controlled by Democrats, would be a steep hill to climb, with billionaires and hedge fund managers everywhere along the way offering tempting refreshments to anyone willing to just stop and rest a bit. What really strikes fear in the wealthy is not what laws a Warren administration might pass but what would happen in administrative regulation, in Cabinet and other appointed positions. A Warren presidency would mean all bets are off in the cozy Washington-Wall Street insiders game that, as much as any legislation, is what under-girds our corporate-dominated neo-Gilded Age inequality.
3
Wonderfully put. Great ending. You know what? It might just happen.
When I was a child, I had a tendency to get frustrated when I was given a project or task that I couldn’t complete immediately. Then, my mother would sing to me, “ Did you ever walk a mile?” /“Oh yes, Mother, very often.” / “Did you do it all at once?” / “No, I did it step by step.”
Though I consider myself a progressive, I think there’s much to be said for incrementalism. For example, with regard to the ACA, why not embrace the logical next step by lowering the age for Medicare to 55 or by providing a public option, instead of advocating a complete, instantaneous overhaul of our healthcare system? Then once people experience the benefits, they will be more amenable to a proposal like Medicare for All. Instead of a wealth tax, which has billionaires uniting to defeat fairness candidates like Warren, revise the tax law to ensure that the super rich are not taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Most things worth achieving are accomplished through incrementalism. Children do not become college graduates their first day of kindergarten, nor did Aaron Rodgers become a franchise quarterback the first time he donned a football helmet. People seem hardwired to resist radical change because it plunges them into the unknown. But if they’re given time to adapt to, and grow into, change, they fare much better. Democrats, please, consider incrementalism as a winning strategy for the 2020 election. The Supreme Court is at stake!
2
well, i love the people ... marching in the streets, singing "ça ira," unfurling liberty banners and hurling cobblestones at the undeservedly rich, preparing the day when their unlettered intellects will build the new albion and claw entitlement remuneration from capitalist lucre -- why not?
since you ask: because we don't live in a "democracy" (whatever that is), we live in a machine, a vast infrastructure of carbon consumption and consumer fulfillment, guided by stakeholders that are equal parts politicians, bureaucrats, owners, laborers and renters (i love 19th century economic concepts), all trammeled up in whatever happens in that congressional committee preparing the bill that will go to debate and a floor vote before it is passed to the other house, gutted and reformulated according to other political priorities, reconciled in conference, sent to the executive, signed into law, entirely rewritten as regulation, promulgated to agency staff and enforced as agent attention span, agency funding and executive priority require.
and i only focus on the federal clockwork, having left out the enforcement agendas created by various state legislature, state agency, county, municipal and special district powers. for when they collide, it goes to court, and then we get -- jarndyce v. jarndyce.
you're being manipulated with a narrative of mythical personalities.
stipo: don't be deluded. outcomes are not preordained -- except that continual growth for profit is the imperative.
Why does everyone only mention Warren as if she is the only viable left candidate? The Bernie Blackout exlempifies the real fear od the billionaire donor class. Bernie Sanders and his grassroots movement are the real reason for the jump ins of billionaires in the race.
If Warren wins the primary, she will go to the center. Mark my words.
2
So if in the '80's, '90's etc. billion aires would sadly only have 1/4 the wealth they've amassed now (since Reagan began the trend of wealth distribution to the 1%), just think then of how much richer America's infrastructure would be- wow! Just think of the wealth and security that would now be enjoyed by America's atrophied middle class- wow! Just think of the greater social commonality that would be felt by our society without astronomical social stratification of deregulated capitalism we see today. And how less politicians would be beholden to mega wealth.
A "stabilizing" democratic candidate like Biden or Bloomberg is arguably what got us Trump. From the Trump base to the socialist left wing and everyone in between are sick of America's yawning income disparity and how it has inevitably bought the American government. Dems. go big or go down again.
2
The empirical fact is that a wealth tax can not be collected
In a global economy, wealth moves were it is taxed less
Recognizing reality , Sweden eliminated the wealth tax in 2007. France eliminated the wealth tax last year.
If you think that the IRS could be better than the Swedish and French tax collectors, think again. Both are better financed, have better computer systems, and operate in a centralized government.
3
Well said.
Will it actually happen? The suspense is unbearable.
But as history shows, even if it does, the robber barons will be back at it, clawing out every penny they can reach. And over time we will always end where we are right now. You just need to look at what's happening in France, the country I come from, politicians are drawing plans to make people pay more for everything. Why? So that the rich can pay less taxes of course!
Frankly I am disgusted by my own species.
2
When the income tax was instituted, only a very few Americans paid it. It wouldn't be very long before the targets of the wealth tax became more numerous just by lowering the ceiling. Kind of like the frog in the saucepan.
3
The fallacy that a stock market investor has 100% of their money in the stock market is ridiculous. I make our living in the stock market and usually have a certain amount in liquid accounts that I can tap whenever there is a drop in the market., or between selling & replacing it with another stock. I also always keep a certain amount in money market accounts just in case I should need cash for whatever reason.
1
Two days ago, the NY Times analysis showed that Senator Warren's plan for a 6% wealth tax on billionaires would predictably erode their aggregate wealth. So the simple question becomes which part of the population then picks up the tab for her Medicare for All plan once the billionaires are tapped out? The NY Times analysis shows that billionaires will be worth less year over year even with yearly stock market gains. Senator Warren's optimistic math works great during a long bull run in the stock market, but even a one decade flat market will drastically reduce the government's net from a wealth tax. Those large middle class crowds screaming "TAX THE RICH!" will soon find themselves paying for their own Medicare for All plans once billionaires' tax contribution is less than the voracious government appetite for private money. I suspect middle class enthusiasm for many of Senator Warren's plans will disappear once the middle class realizes that the buck stops at their pay checks and bank accounts. Every person in the country will be a slave to the government's unstoppable taxation machine. It is ironic that a Massachusetts Senator advocates now for change that is directly opposite to values that the state's Patriots shed blood for in the 1770's.
5
But you are leaving out the enormous interest made on the billions.
This probably won't get through, but it's worth noting that when Michael Bloomberg became mayor of New York in 2002 his wealth, published in newspapers at the time, was $4b. This article has him at $51.8b 17 years later. That's just shy of 3b a year. If there's any example of how money in our system is skewing toward those at the top, it's this.
7
@Thomas Cook
Money - assets - invested correctly makes money.
Econ 101 or, you know, how the world has operated since human evolved into agriculture from hunter gatherer.
This is news to you?
2
I'm afraid of Elizabeth Warren not because of a wealth tax, which is probably unconstitutional & certainly un-passable, but because her inflexibility with "Medicare for All" has already killed her candidacy in swing states Democrats need to win.
I am a liberal democrat, but as the family member of a government employee, I have very good insurance. I also have very serious medical issues, so I'm very, very sensitive about changes with my health insurance, which has paid for all my surgeries, tests, hospital stays, and medications. I'm happy to pay more in taxes to subsidize Medicaid expansion, or even a "public option."
By trying to revamp our entire health care system in one shot, Warren has made herself unelectable. If I have a choice between a centrist billionaire (who supports women's rights and fights the gun industry) or a far-left, unelectable Democrat, it's a no-brainer.
4
Expect the billionaires and more than a few millionaires who profess to be Democrats to jump ship for the Trump train soon after someone like Elizabeth Warren becomes the de facto head of the party. That is, if the party establishment doesn't stop her first, which it clearly wants to do.
Problem is, democracy dies when this level of inequality is present in society. Concentration of immense power in very few hands is directly contrary to the American idea. I predict that the nation's comparative zest for democracy or oligarchy will be settled in 2020. What's scarier, absolute rule by the very rich, or Elizabeth Warren?
7
I have been a Liz Warren fan for years. But for her to beat Trump, a grifter who will tell as many lies as possible, in the face of truth, she will have to moderate some of her positions on economic issues.
Make no mistake, few if any candidates, have ever had Warren's qualifications as an advocate for American consumers. Wall Street bankers hate her because she knows how they made their money. Before Michael Lewis wrote, "The Big Short," Warren saw how the Wall Street machine convinced homebuyers to disregard common sense. She taught credit and bankruptcy law at Harvard, after all. She knows how they launched the Great Recession years before it brought the nation, and the world, to its knees.
So what could go wrong for Liz Warren? Unless she modifies her plan for Medicare for All as an "opt-in" option, or as an extension of Obamacare, taking away insurance options will strike fear in the hearts of people who like their insurance plans.
Here is sound advice for Warren: There is no "plan" more important that beating Trump. Beating Trump, and taking back the Senate, are the only goals for 2020. Without those victories, not one of those altruistic socio-economic plans will see the light of day for a generation.
First, beat Trump and the Republicans. Please, Liz, just work on that.
5
Can a woman win? Can a Jewish man win?
This is what I fear will win- bigotry and sexism.
The only defense possible for Bill Gates’ reluctance to be taxed more, is that he wouldn’t control the mission of that tax money. At present, his foundation is doing plenty of good works, under his guidance. If those same funds were paid in taxes instead, Gates has no direct say over how the funds are used - possibly for a border wall or more military uses, which he would not pursue as a goal of his foundation.
3
@Just Curious
One of the primary goals of the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation has been to provide basic medical assistance to 3rd world young women who had none and never would've it left to the men in those governments and villages.
1
I’m all for an anti-billionaire presidency. It would set a new tone and ethic that oligarchs are unAmerican. It might even move Congress to act on behalf of everyone and rebuild society. But my thoughts stray to places like Wisconsin and Michigan, which I watched slip away on TV three years ago. These voters will not vote for Warren. She’s too much too soon. Can’t we just get rid of Trump this time around? We all know the Republican Party is living on borrowed time. Change is on the way. But not soon enough.
8
However much some people think that Warren is too radical, may do so at their peril...because of the somewhat aggressive posture she presents. But, when you think about it, all she is asking is that the 'rich and powerful' pay their fair share in taxes...as any real democracy requires. This, if the wealthy see the virtue of belonging to a just society, solidarian with the least among us, and able to integrate all of us, however flawed, to this experiment in freedom...without allowing it to degenerate into 'license'. And more equity in this process is fundamental.
5
To those who say they like Warren's ideas but fear her electability: Stop peddling your fears and start selling the ideas. What a radical notion. Results in a democracy may require more than sampling and messaging and maneuvering around your fellow citizens' preexisting opinions. It may actually require persuading them that we all need something new. It's noteworthy that Warren's rise in the polls has not been brought about by massive ad buys or a media positively doting over her. She has risen in the polls as more Americans have heard from her rather than just of her.
5
It is not only the wealthy class that is worried about Warren. It's the rest of us millions who, first and foremost, want a clear path in beating Trump. Trump needs to be ousted, and higher taxes is not the way to do it. And unless Warren moderates a few of her positions to relieve our concerns, she does not provide that path.
2
Yes, because Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney proved how successful a moderate stance is. American voters mobilize for aspirational campaigns. Why hide your concerns (which are likely selfish in nature) underneath the myth of the “silent majority?” Consider this, if it weren’t for fear mongering by the right wing and Democrat centrist-leaning press, the messages of both Sanders and Warren would have broader appeal with the non-wealthy, regardless of party affiliation.
3
@GM
My concerns are not 'likely selfish in nature.' A revealing assumption on your part. I just have priorities, as you should too. What is the larger issue? Is it the damage that Trump is imposing on our Republic on a daily basis? Or is it the inequities in our system that Warren wants to address? Both are very real issues, but we have to triage. We have to go for the bleeding head wound first, then deal with the slower moving gangrene.
1
Reagan won with proposing less taxes and cutting social programs after a very wonderful jimmy carter many called a wimp.
Like majority of working class and poor Americans, I live more in fear of utility bills, medical expenses bill collectors and rising costs than I do of candidates that dare to challenge the undue influence of corporate power.
5
I am very concerned that the people are being misled and will believe that Warren's and/or Sanders' plans are "too radical," too "socialist," etc. Very concerned.
7
@RMS They will not be misled at all. The plans are way too radical and socialist.
I would simply like to see well-funded public programs that focus on healthcare, education, climate change and infrastructure, among others.
In order to do this, we need to go where the money is: the extremely wealthy.
Of course, I want for any collected funds to be spent very wisely, but we must do something and start somewhere.
4
The tax provision that allows bankers and the super wealthy to lower their income is called "carried interest". It has been around for decades. Eliminate that provision and that will fix the problem. However the Democrats when in power under Obama wouldn't touch "carried interest". Its main supports are Chuck Schumer and multiple Democratic Senators that need campaign contributions to get elected. No sense on punishing small/medium size businesses when the solution is simple and easy, get rid of carried interest.
3
According to Bloomberg News, Biden is actually a bigger threat to billionaires because his proposals might actually get through Congress.
Warren's support is unrelated to her ability to execute. For progressives it's about validation. They seem not to care that their proposals will never get anywhere. It's more important for them to have their proposals supported by a candidate, even if she cannot deliver them.
A strong argument to tell progressives whatever they want to hear, which Warren is more than happy to do.
4
The wealthy are like sleeping bears who have awoken grumpily to the sounds of a winter storm outside their caves.
When they engage with Warren as a serious prospect instead of as an annoying buzzing sound around their ears, she will "encourage them" to invest more in the country and growth. The stick is needed with this group of people to force them to engage. Engagement will lead to options for them to become better Americans. They will still need control, but they might join team Warren in the end.
1
The titantic shift in taxing suggested by Warren of course is not new. The problem is our country has become so engrained with capitalism is good no matter what. Even the folks who have been short changed believe wholeheartedly in capitalism. We've come to believe that its capitalism that gives us equal opportunity, its not. We've come to conflate capitalism with democracy, its not.
It's an economic model that with guardrails, essentially social constraints provides a system to develop commerce. We have removed to many guardrails in this country and capitalism has become destructive to our advancement.
4
Look at what it’s done to the planet. What does that cost? There is no economic measure.
1
If Warren's program were ever passed, the entire US economy would crash. You may not like the system we have, but it does work, after a fashion. It also makes not just the billionaires, but the top 20%, very well-off. A Warren economy would destroy the investments and incomes of every one in the affluent class.
Since these are the people who pay the bulk of the Federal and state taxes, it also wouldn't do much for the people at the bottom. Governments would have to cut rather than increase spending.
You don't believe this? Try electing Warren. Trillions of dollars in wealth will vanish in a flash, before she is even inaugurated.
5
@Jonathan
Our economy is headed for a greater crash than in 2008, from which I never recovered, thanks to the unleashed hucksterism of neoliberal economics. It will take Sanders to get us through it as it did FDR. The alternative is brutal dictatorship and national dissolution. Mark my words.
3
Thanks For repeating Reagan era trickle down economics propaganda. It has not worked.
1
So, I've worked for 2 of the billionaires listed, so I think I have a little insight about one of the ways they made their billions. Living in Seattle, I worked at Microsoft and also at Amazon.
At Microsoft, there is an army of contractors in addition to full-time employees. Contractors don't get Microsoft benefits, stock options or perks. And these are not grunt workers - some contractors have huge responsibilities and projects. Why aren't they full-time employees? Money.
At Amazon, all those orders are being packaged by contractors. Short term, long term, seasonal contractors, working in rotten warehouses (unheated in the winter, overheated in the summer) with no job security, no benefits and certainly no stock options. Why aren't they employees? Money.
It's much cheaper and easier to pull in a contractor than to hire someone and give them liveable wages and benefits. Easier to fire them, too. Companies will tell us that they need flexibility in their workforce. It's the flexibility to make more money off the work of others while providing as little as possible in return.
I might have more sympathy for Gates, Bezos and friends (ok, probably not) if they rewarded the people who've made their vast wealth possible more equitably. Since they don't, their taxes can be used to improve the lives of the rest of us by providing child care, college and health care.
11
Amen!
The USA hasn't been very united for quite some time if ever. A 2 term Warren presidency with Democrats holding both houses could result in turning the tie back towards a more fair union.
Of course the wealthiest will try every trick in the books to stop her from winning the job, and even if she were to win you would see a backlash that makes Mitch McConnell's edict to thwart anything president Obama tried to pass look like child's play.
Warren won't get everything she wants but half of that still looks good to me and good for the most Americans.
It's time for courage from the American electorate. It's time to give someone who really wants to change the economic landscape in favor of ALL Americans and not just the rich.
As Trump said....what do we have to lose? Well....a few billion here or there if you are an oligarch.
3
Unrecognized by many retired middle class people with 401K or IRA assets is that they already pay a "wealth tax", but it is called their annual "required minimum distribution". People over 70 1/2 have to withdraw slightly less than 4% of their IRA wealth every year and pay regular income tax on it. Since most retirees cannot afford to invest their IRA's in risky investments, they are likely to earn as little as 1%-2% interest on safe investments. This means that they are forced by their "wealth tax" to eat into principal for living expenses in this age of the Federal Reserve Bank's sponsored financial repression.
3
@Mister Ed of course one has to pay taxes on the money in the IRA at some point...it was deducted from your income years ago, and you did not pay taxes then...the RMD was known by anyone who chose to purchase an IRA...
1
@Mister Ed
That's not a wealth tax. That is a deferred income tax on money that was not taxed when you put it into yuor retirement funds.
So, I've worked for 2 of the billionaires listed, so I think I have a little insight about one of the ways they made their billions.
Living in Seattle, I worked at Microsoft and also at Amazon.
At Microsoft, there is an army of contractors in addition to full-time employees. Contractors don't get Microsoft benefits, stock options or perks. And these are not grunt workers - some contractors have huge responsibilities and projects. Why aren't they full-time employees? Money.
At Amazon, all those orders are being packaged by contractors. Short term, long term, seasonal contractors, working in rotten warehouses (unheated in the winter, overheated in the summer) with no job security, no benefits and certainly no stock options. Why aren't they employees? Money.
It's much cheaper and easier to pull in a contractor than to hire someone and give them liveable wages and benefits. Easier to fire them, too. Companies will tell us that they need flexibility in their workforce. It's the flexibility to make more money off the work of others while providing as little as possible in return.
I might have more sympathy for Gates, Bezos and friends (ok, probably not) if they rewarded the people who've made their vast wealth possible more equitably. Since they don't, their taxes can be used to improve the lives of the rest of us by providing child care, college and health care.
3
So, I've worked for 2 of the billionaires listed, so I think I have a little insight about one of the ways they made their billions.
Living in Seattle, I worked at Microsoft and also at Amazon.
At Microsoft, there is an army of contractors in addition to full-time employees. Contractors don't get Microsoft benefits, stock options or perks. And these are not grunt workers - some contractors have huge responsibilities and projects. Why aren't they full-time employees? Money.
At Amazon, all those orders are being packaged by contractors. Short term, long term, seasonal contractors, working in rotten warehouses (unheated in the winter, overheated in the summer) with no job security, no benefits and certainly no stock options. Why aren't they employees? Money.
It's much cheaper and easier to pull in a contractor than to hire someone and give them liveable wages and benefits. Easier to fire them, too. Companies will tell us that they need flexibility in their workforce. It's the flexibility to make more money off the work of others while providing as little as possible in return.
I might have more sympathy for Gates, Bezos and friends (ok, probably not) if they rewarded the people who've made their vast wealth possible more equitably. Since they don't, their taxes can be used to improve the lives of the rest of us by providing child care, college and health care.
2
I think the billionaires have overplayed their hands and tipped their cards with respect a widely shared interest in preserving the yawning wealth gap. Jamelle Bouie is absolutely right to cite estimates that the richest Americans would remain unimaginably wealthy if Warren implemented her proposed wealth tax decades ago, but these billionaires maintain policies that diminish their fortress balance sheets is unreasonable, even if the wealth transfer lifts millions out of poverty. If nothing else Senator Warren has injected a critical debate into the public discourse, and my hope is that the general voting electorate thinks carefully about the real utility of unchecked income inequality.
3
I love the idea of Elizabeth Warren being the Democratic nominee. In fact, it sometimes makes me delirious when I see her on TV talking about her various punitive proposals for businesses and ‘rich people’. Her plan to double the size of the Federal Government by nationalizing the healthcare industry makes me absolutely giddy. All of that to say, there could be no better candidate to guarantee the re-election of Donald Trump then Elizabeth Warren. Absolutely none.
6
@William
I have to agree. Progressives are driving the Democratic Party over a cliff.
Here's a counter-question first raised by Andrew Carnegie: Why not tax wealth Instead of income? Carnegie, one of the richest Americans ever, argued that a poor man for Scotland, or anybody else, should keep the gains their hard work and good ideas made during their lifetime. Then, beyond a reserve left for wife and kids, the rest should go to the country that gave them the opportunity. Carnegie 'walked the walk', giving away about $86BB in current dollars rather than leaving it to his family.
Perhaps now the idea of taxing wealth instead of income is ready to play Carnegie Hall.
2
So apparently according to our billionaire overlords, implementing policies that enjoy majority public support is radical, while pandering to the oligarchs and their interests over those of the vast majority of citizens is moderate and sensible. Got news for our billionaire buddies like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, you’ll be just as fine having 14 billion dollars and 49 billion dollars instead of 97 and 160 billion dollars respectively. For our overlords it’s what’s called a distinction without a difference. For everyone else, it means much more resource to fund public programs.
3
If billionaires have less money in their investment accounts, won’t they unleash their outstanding brains on the task of creating more wealth....the old fashioned way? Won’t they innovate, invest, and enterprise their way back to higher wealth? Or will they sit on the sidelines, buy bonds, and withdraw until they get batter tax positions?
2
Warren scares me and I'm not a billionaire. She scares me because she'll lose in the general election and we simply can not risk another 4 years of Trump. This election is too important for Dems to shoot themselves in the foot by running someone that's way left of the average American.
10
@Chris
When and if Trump is elected, you can thank a progressive.
The billionaires are already planning their exit strategies and/or piling their money into trusts the government cannot get to. The wealth tax will backfire that the crazy tax on luxury yachts back in the 90's. The result was wiping out the luxury yacht business and the jobs that went with it.
Keep it simple and adjust the tax rates and/or create new rates at higher percentages. Requires very little work.
2
It's not that the billionaires and mega-millionaires own too much. It's that too many working people own so little, are so deeply in debt and are just a couple of paychecks away from eviction or foreclosure. If every person who works 40 hours a week and obeys the law could own and maintain a very modest home and a reliable car, have health insurance, and enough savings to pay all their bills if they lose their job, I wouldn't care if the billionaires were trillionaires. How do we get to that place where every working person in the richest nation in the world in history can have a decent standard of living with a measure of security? I believe that is what Warren and Sanders are thinking about and what America's wealthiest should also be thinking about.
6
Leonardo da Vinci observed that “everything is connected to everything else”.
A wealth tax has implications for re-investment and income generation. That, in turn, is connected to economic growth and so on. Embarked on this road, it’s evident that demands on wealth will be invariably be larger than the capital being distributed.
In a nutshell, here’s the problem: Income disparity is increasing. Solution: let’s redistribute. Issue: What do we do for an encore when demands increase. Well, simple. Two solutions. We will address that when need arises or (said quietly) Raise taxes further.
Remember how hard it was to pass Obamacare with a super majority? None of this stuff will ever happen anytime soon. Waste of time talking about it. I just want a presidential candidate who speaks more broadly and says that "these are the goals I want to get to, and I'll sign any legislation that moves us closer to those goals" (Remember who talked more like that? Obama). Hillary had a million plans too. Presidents don't make plans, the congress does. Medicare for all? Free college tuition? Massive wealth taxes? Even if she does get elected President, all I have to say is: good luck with that!
3
@bmangano
The policies can be passed IF, you start electing politicians unencumbered by corporate campaign donations from lobbyists that presently determine the agenda at the expense of everyone else.
1
@bmangano
This is why Trump is so popular. He doesn't just about doing things. He barrels through. Yes, like a bull in a China shop, but he delivers.
@bmangano That's exactly right. She's just setting her followers up for massive disappointment and disillusionment.
Thankfully we do not have a parliamentary form of government, which means Warren’s (or Sanders, or Biden’s, etc.) proposals are unlikely to be fully (or even partially) implemented. The Founders were prescient to set up our system of government to prevent such demagoguery.
5
@Rip Murdock How are things like fair taxation and leveling the playing field "demagoguery"? So in your world, Eisenhower was a "demagogue" due to his high rates of taxation and less income inequality? I am not really sure how to interpret your comment.
@Rip Murdock
Yes sirree, you certainly have a government that is moving ahead with all sorts of wonderful legislation aren't you?
The Democratic Party hasn't done thing for it's the people for the last forty years. They pitted middle class, working class and poor against each other by gender and race. When someone like Warren comes along, flawed as she is, speaking for the American people we better start listening.
I don't agree with most of the things she says but at least she'll be fighting for us. Look at it this way. I knew an old timer that thought FDR was a commie but voted for him four times when he ran for president. He couldn't do everything he wanted either but he still did what we needed. To bad we can't keep the hysteria out of politics we might be able to accomplish something.
6
@JoeG
FDR's history and what happened in America during that time, is one that could ultimately repeat itself going forward. FDR came from wealth, however, he was intelligent enough to read the "lay of the land" during those troubling times when many in his party approached him and said that people in their constituency had indicated that millions were suffering and if they did not do something to help those in need, sooner rather than later they would find millions in the street and approaching the edifices of power in Washington with "pitchforks in hand".
Thus the New Deal was created and because he was still receiving considerable push back from Republicans and The Supreme Court for this policy, he still had the immense leadership skills to withstand the pressure stand up to the detractors and move ahead. "Sound familiar"? Some things never change, even then, the wealthy and influential weren't interested in saving the country from disaster.
This is what America needs today, the ability of a leader to stand up to those who don't want change because it doesn't serve their interests.
It would seem, you only have TWO in the race who can fill that bill, Sanders and Warren.
Unfortunately, in the US money is officially speech. Therefore, the whisper of a billionaire is louder than a million cries of agony.
Imagine, however, if money were not speech. If presidential campaigns were financed by the government. If all presidential political advertising was banned until 18 months before the general election.
Would our lives be materially and emotionally better? Would we be better informed? Would the people have the voice, the only voice?
Why not give it a try? We could not make things worse. We’re already doing that.
1
The USA are in such a mess : tragic student loans exponential increase, health care is a catastrophe, social and economic inequalities surging, the 1 % making even more money as some are pushed in the street without a roof.
Americans consume twice the energy as Europeans , per capita and produce the same or less.
The carbon foot print of the USA is 3 or 4 times heavier than Europe.Per capita.
Bravo Americans, you have made all the wrong ecological, economic and social and philosophical choices.
All at the expense of the rest of the world.
5
@JPH
Not everyone needs to go to *higher education* college or is even *lower education* literate enough to function there enough to graduate and understand those classes.
The issue since the 1970s is pay.
American business and politicians enabled low pay and zero pay increases by engineering immigration laws in 1965 to let in the cause of tamping down the American workers' pay: 100 million low wage, low to no education, low skilled high breeding 3rd worlders over the last 50 years.
Keep voting for that and every generation of Americans will be poor and poorly paid, save for a few thousand tech billionaires.
@Maggie let's keep people uneducated. It is the American way to freedom.
"The latest polls" you linked to show Warren losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin. Ohio too likely, but it's not on the list, There are a lot of other reasons billionaires can rest well, first the wealth tax plans would never pass Congress, or in the event they do, they may be ruled unconstitutional. Yet, most of all, big government big tax Harvard professor Warren would not beat Trump in the Electoral College.
Her "Fair and Welcoming Immigration System", which decriminalizes border crossing, meaning no one will be turned back, but "given a court date and a free lawyer" is a huge swing state white working class election loser.
Then there are her 53 other plans that will also provide attack ad fodder for the GOP, so much and with his piles of money that the billionaires can rest easy. Trump would be re-elected, again cutting the taxes of the wealthy, along with safety net programs, for another 4 years.
6
It isn't only the wealthy who are afraid of Warren. I'm a Sanders supporter and I'm afraid of her.
For much of her adult life, she was a libertarian Republican.
This wasn't the party of Lincoln but of Nixon and Reagan. If she didn't see anything wrong with their policies, I fear for her judgment or her commitment to the policies she says she is supporting now.
And if she thinks so many of Sanders' ideas are good, why did she support Clinton over him in 2016?
Sanders may have his faults, as we all do, but he has had the same set of core principles his whole adult life.
9
Bouie doesn't mention Mayor Pete Buttigieg, most recently polling at 19% to Warren's 20% in Iowa, above both Bernie and Biden, who also wants to tax the rich. Just not at the extreme level of Warren or Bernie. Plus his Medicare for All Who Want It is a more realistic way to get to single payer than Warren or Bernie.
2
@AJBF that the 2 -6 % Warren proposes over 10 billion is considered "extreme" by anyone shows how far to the tight are political references have been moved and how much the oligarchy is controlling the conversation.
5
@Elizabeth Completely agree. I don't know why anyone outside those 100 families should bother about this plan so much. Not like 50% of Americans are close to being billionaires.
2
@AJBF
Just for starters, Medicare for All Who Want It will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care. It is just a clever dodge so he doesn't look like he first came out for Medicare for All (he did) and dropped it (flipflopper). The only way to get down the cost is by everyone being in the pool.
2
Any thoughts about the first one to come up with all these people-power ideas, and then stand by them for 40 years? That would be Bernie Sanders, the one who can beat tRump.
4
@ChesBay
Warren is a watered-down decoy and they pretend to be afraid of her. They don't even report on Sanders -- who just got the endorsement of the nation;s largest nurses union and who pulls bigger crowds and more citizen funding than anyone else.
5
The problem with Warren isn’t a tax on billionaires, it’s that a vote for Elizabeth Warren is a vote for Trump. I would never be anything but a Democrat, but it is exasperating to watch the party take positions that only appeal to the progressive wing. It’s like watching people vote for the Green Party in 2016 because, ironically, those were the votes that led to the U.S, pull out from the climate accord and the gutting of environmental regulations. Medicare for all isn’t going to win the electoral college because it scares people who have good health insurance. Why not focus in the short term on getting care for people who don’t have it and supplemental coverage for people with crushing deductibles? That is sellable and it gets to the same place. Then there is time to figure out a palatable transition to single payer. But many of the very Americans you want to lift up are going to die if Trump gets re-elected when they lose their healthcare completely. There are a lot of us worried about Warren because we don’t want that to happen.
8
@Caroline Mitchell
The progressive wing is the choice because poll after poll confirms that Americans from both parties overwhelmingly support policies such as universal healthcare, minimum wage, fairer tax rates, dealing with climate change, getting money out of politics, etc., etc.
The idea that centrist/moderate candidates and their so-called "incremental" approach to change is one
put forth by a corporate/establishment and some of their media friends who wish to maintain the "status
quo". while they keep trying to convince people like you that is what the majority of Americans want, the polls state otherwise.
1
@Caroline Mitchell
Don't worry, when election day rolls around, if Warren is the nominee, a vote for her will not be a vote for Trump.
Nobody has "good health insurance." Some have the income that they can sustain a prolonged illness that hits the annual caps year after year. Most insured Americans do not. Bankruptcy ensues and the public picks up the tab through Medicaid. There is no way to cover everyone and contain costs adequately without, in effect, nationalizing the profits of an industry that adds nothing to the delivery of medical care and has proved ineffective at restraining extortionate increases in drug and service prices.
2
@Caroline Mitchell
Warren is an ideologue. She could never agree to the very practical solutions you suggest. In honesty, you are far more likely to get practical solutions out of Trump.
Think prison reform. Tax reform. Renegotiating NAFTA. Drug pricing policies. Closing our borders.
I would trust a rewriting of Obamacare from Trump before I'd support what Sanders and Warren are proposing. We've already been there. Keep your doctors, yada, yada, yada.
1
I think it's interesting how much the political debate has skewed to the right when ideas such as universal health care, child care subsidies, a return to previous taxation rates, and reinstating financial regulations are all seen as far left wing ideas. I don't think Warren is an ideologue. I think she is a smart pragmatist who has correctly diagnosed the serious problems facing the US - income inequality and corruption. She reminds me of Roosevelt who said “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” I say you go girl!
6
I am.
I agree with almost everything she says (apart from the nonsense about universal healthcare without increasing middle class taxes).
The problem is, she can not win.
3
Robert Reich correctly stated in a recent speech in which he said the 2020 election was going to be a battle for the future and soul of America, BUT, it will not necessarily be "right vs. left" nor "capitalism vs. socialism".
What it actually will be is "Oligarchy vs, democracy" and this discussion is the perfect case in point. Oligarchs can buy politicians and the government agenda that ultimately strictly serves their interests at the expense of everyone else, hence, this, of course, is a direct threat to the future of democracy because it means the average persons vote is of little value.
Of course, billionaires are afraid of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and other progressives, because they are a direct threat to their power and influence in a system that serves their interests.. The slight affect on their income is just a deflection, nothing more.
Bernie Sanders said quite unequivocally, "I relish in their hate", because, it is quite clear, that given time, if substantial change does not occur whereby government can serve all of its citizens, democracy in America will all but disappear and when it happens, the Oligarchs will be toasting each other with a bottle of very expensive champagne.
8
@Deus
Democrats' narratives are dropping like flies so they have resorted to a new divisive strategy. Instead of a War on [fill-in-the-identity], it's now a "War against the Rich".
Non-billionaires are their latest victim class.
"looks like Warren actually could be the nominee, and anti-Trump billionaires are worried."
No, it is more pragmatic Democrats who need to be worried. She likely would fail, like her predecessor, to win the necessary electoral votes in the Heartland and guarantee another Trump victory with a minority popular vote. That is more than worrisome; it is terrifying!
5
@Penseur
The predecessor who lost to Trump was a moderate. Hillary was an old fashioned Roosevelt Republican and that is where the DNC and its allies are, too.
We need someone who can take them on and make the changes that voters have being voting for since 2008.
@nora m : I would like to believe that you are correct, but cannot. Perhaps because i live in one of the "swing" states what I see and hear is different than in blue New England.
1
@nora m
"Them" and "us" are the United States, are all Americans.
Even beyond living with the "will of the people." Every society ever attempted has had a social contract, written or unwritten, that describes a relationship between haves and have nots. Feudalism, theocracy, communism, and even American democracy/capitalism has a social contract. That contract allows a few upper class folks to have a certain "quality of life." Those few are allowed that luxury as long as their excess provides a decent life for the lower classes. These contracts tend to get strained by income inequality. High inequality can make the vast majority in the lower and middle classes feel like they're getting a raw deal. The US has historically had a robust middle class of professionals and small business owners who have bridged the divide between haves and have nots making a decent life possible for most. Many factors have eroded this bridge and thus weakened our social contract; notably corporate greed and low taxes. Now, if billionaires are worried about their quality of life then perhaps they should focus more on ensuring their excess still provides that middle class opportunity. Today it seems like they are too worried about their margins while regular people worry about debt, retirement, healthcare, and more.
3
@James Swords
"Today, it seems like they are too worried about their margins while regular people worry about debt, retirement, healthcare and more".
Quite true and as someone of note recently sated, quite accurately, "don't bother looking for the better nature in the super wealthy, they don't have one".
@James Swords Well said. Some of these billionaires have made their billions by putting that same small business class you mentioned out of business.
So, if the uber-rich are not taxed fairly and the rest of us have to continue to pick up the tab, what does that say about the majority of Americans and whether we still live in a 'Democracy'. Are we their serfs? I think not. So, be afraid 1%'ers, be very afraid.
5
@kladinvt
Trump was actually forty years in the making and what it says about America is that substantial change in attitudes and how they look at the "uber rich" has to change. For the most part, they do NOT have the best interests of Americans at heart.
@Deus
No, they have an interest in an America that no longer exists and hasn't since our decline in the 1970s.
It behooves everyone, especially the fringe left to learn some history and be able to articulate what has changed socially, economically and politically from decade to decade to where are now.
Democracy is the only form of government that cannot be imposed from above and cannot be bought. The minute that happens, democracy ends. You can still vote, but it will have a predetermined outcome. Money does that for you.
The billionaires in the race have chosen oligarchy over democracy. It really doesn't matter which party they are in. If we allow this to happen, we will be choosing between a (hopefully somewhat) benign dictator vs. a malignant one.
Thank you, supreme court. Citizen's United - the gift that goes on giving - for the billionaire class.
Raise your hand if you ever thought literally returning to the Dark Ages (a small hereditary ruling class and the rest serfs) sounded like a good idea.
4
@nora m The question is how long a people will let a few dozen ultra-rich families trample upon their well-being in the name of national interest or whatever. Democracy offers a way to answer that question in a nonviolent manner. If it fails to do so, we have any number of instances from the past where it finds a violent answer, including in Trump's favorite country, Russia.
@nora m
I am sure that from her grave, a smile has arisen on Ayn Rand's face.
When Americans talk about taxes, I think about the story of Monsieur de La Palisse, the 15th century French aristocrat who became famous for the epitaph on his grave that says: “Here lies Monsieur de La Palisse, the man who, had he not died, would still be alive”.
This famous tautology was named by the French a lapalissade: something that is completely obvious and self-evident to the point of being ridiculous.
Once again we hear that the rich already pay the vast majority of taxes and if their tax burden is not decreased, they may decide to move their productive activities or to give up on new investments.
What is self-evident to the point of being ridiculous is that the American tax system, just like those of all developed countries, is still progressive, meaning that it proportionally reflects the wealth of taxpayers.
So, if the rich pay the vast majority of taxes it’s because they have the vast majority of wealth!
The differences in American tax contributions is nothing more than a reflection of the social inequality that, in this country, has already reached Third World level.
To inveigh against more aggressive redistribution policies by saying that the wealthy already bear the overwhelming majority of taxation without talking about the cause that lies behind it (the enormous concentration of wealth in their hands) is comparable to a physician who talks to her patient only about the symptoms bothering him without any mention of the underlying disease that causes them.
4
"They want a restoration of the pre-Trump status quo, not a revolution. "
The pre-Trump status quo is the reason Trump got elected in the first place.
We're wrestling over the soul of America's future. Will we allow a few people to own everything, or will we create policies that keep ownership of necessities reasonably distributed? After all, it is money that buys and controls those necessities.
The problem for Warren is the amount of damage that has already been done. The tax code and financial regulations have allowed an obscene difference in outcomes, and that damage will have to be undone via some sort of claw back mechanism, which is the wealth tax in her case. But going forward, we will need more equitable tax codes and financial regulations, and Warren has the knowledge and expertise to make that happen.
3
Bill Gates "when asked if he would support Warren over Trump, he demurred. Instead, he said, he’d cast a ballot for whichever candidate had the “more professional approach.”
This is a very troubling response given that he's had nearly 3 years to observe an erratic, incredibly unprofessional Trump at the helm. Gates must entertain the idea that whimsical trade, tariff and foreign policies are helpful for his bottom line.
6
@carlab
Gates response is to be expected and like many in his class he will choose the politician that bests serves HIS interests, bottom line. That is confirmed by his lack of commitment and that he would even consider for a second that Trump has the remotest sense of professionalism in his approach should give one an idea as to the thought processes of the uber rich.
Ultimately, don't try to find the better nature in the super wealthy like Gates, they don't have one.
@carlab
Gates and his billionaire cohort are not affected by much of anything. Money insulates them from the daily reality of the rest of us. Trump is a boor you don't want to encounter at a dinner party, not a threat to their existence. They can avoid everything else about him and his administration.
" And even if the wealth tax never became law, a Warren administration would still take a hard line on financial regulation, consumer protection and tax enforcement, key areas of interest for the super rich. "
That's it right there. It is doubtful that a President Warren would ever get a wealth tax through congress for a number of reasons. But I bet there are a lot of Americans like me who think it's high time for a return to "a hard line on financial regulation, consumer protection and tax enforcement." You know, rule of law. If that's what the billionaires fear, I question their motives.
A President Warren might just save them from themselves.
5
@Edward
Warren wants to reign-in run-amok capitalism; Sanders is the one who wants to restore real democracy. They agree on many things, but there are real differences, too.
1
Voters need to understand the meaning of a billion dollars. Billion is now a common word in our vocabulary and it appears all the time in our daily lives, but I'm not sure people consider the actual amount of money one billion represents. The world is run by billionaires. It crossed borders and it represents an elite number of people who govern with their money. The rest of us are pawns in this monetary bureaucracy. Voters living in democracies still have the power of the vote, but it is getting to the point where even that could disappear as the wealthy never like to give up what they have amassed. Warren and Sanders may not have it exactly right, but they see how the minions are being manipulated by fear and lies. The wealth gap has widened to extremes and this is never a good thing. We need to right all the wrongs before governments are brought down by turmoil. Never say it can't happen here.
6
With little sympathy for billionaires, I do see some issues here with property rights. If your friendly neighborhood billionaire has a controlling interest in a company she built, than would she be required to give that up to meet the wealth tax obligation? No doubt you can scrape by on a 1 billion dollar fortune as opposed to a 50 billion dollar fortune, but why do you have to give control of your company away?
4
@Daniel
Give away control of your company? Where did you get that idea? Besides, very few large companies (like the Koch network of subsidiaries) are privately held. Most are publicly traded corporations.
@Daniel uh- have you actually looked at Sanders and Warren's wealth tax proposals? Neither are anything like what you describe - where are you getting this?
@nora m
Yes, but ultimately who owns the majority of the shares?
"if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion."
The poor darlings.
7
@April
Next thing you know, they will be clipping grocery coupons. Like the Romneys when he was in graduate school, so poor they had to touch their capital.
1
It's not just a question of taxes but how they will be spent. Perennially unremarked in these fora is the government's terrible stewardship of money with trillions of dollars spent to make things worse in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or on stupidities like coastal flood insurance, ethanol mandates.
10
@Tom Powell
Blame the Republicans for those things. They never saw a billionaire whose pockets they weren't willing - nay, eager - to line.
Vote for Bernie. He will put the money to work rebuilding the country, starting with our crumbling infrastructure and the climate emergency.
1
The wealth tax is really not a satisfactory answer for the failure to tax income and profit at a high enough rate. It is a likely-to-fail attempt to claw back money that would have gone to the government if income, inheritance, corporate and other taxes had not been so effectively reduced by lowering rates and creating loopholes over the last fifty years. Honestly, reforming the tax code is probably more practical.
A fundamental source of corruption (that would not be addressed by a wealth tax) is the common use of tax policy to incentivize certain types of activities and punish others. If we would start by eliminating all special rates and breaks for particular kinds of income or losses, it would immediately increase the fairness dramatically and let the markets decide what makes money or not.
8
@Steve
Actually, in order to prevent all this from happening, money should have NEVER been allowed to enter the realm of American politics whereby corporations and their lobbyists could buy politicians to create the agenda that strictly serves their interests.
Citizen United was the beginning of the destruction of democracy in America.
I don’t know if I can finish this comment in time because I’m waiting for my free Canadian doctor to see me and when I walk in without an appointment she usually makes me wait a few minutes until she finishes with patients who got here before me. It’s usually about 15 minutes, so here goes:
There are two reasons why Americans absolutely must tax the mega wealthy more:
First, that’s where the money is. With vast wealth inequality and an increasingly cash poor majority, the only way you can fund the government is by taxing at high rates the small group of people who have most of the money. On top of that, the wealth inequity increases the need for government services, since the increasingly poor working classes desperately need financial support from the government.
Second, vast wealth inequities eventually will kill a democracy. Not only do the wealthy have undue political power, the contrast between their wealth and the masses’ poverty will inevitably produce class struggle. And to protect their privilege against popular rebellion the wealthy will resort to authoritarianism.
The objections to taxes are two. I won’t even bother with the silly libertarian arguments about “freedom.” A billionaire’s abstract freedom is nothing against a family’s concrete need for food and medical care. But the second objection is more serious—that taxes will hurt the economy eventually hurting everyone.
I will get to these objections later. I am out of space and my doctor is here.
14
So, on to the economic arguments against higher taxes for the megawealthy. The first and most common is around incentives. If taxes are high, we’ll all lose motivation. The already rich will stop investing. The not-yet-rich will just give up and stop trying to get rich. Inventors will stop inventing. No one will work. This is silly. The empirical evidence suggests taxes need to approach 100% before they demotivate people. Who passes up the opportunity to earn $100 million because it’s taxed at 60% rather than 20%? Yes $40 million is less than $80. But it’s still a motivating sum. And there’s still intrinsic motivation which for most creative people is more important than money anyway.
More to the point is the argument that large personally held concentrations of wealth are in themselves economically valuable. Individuals who control a lot of wealth are free to invest it in risky and visionary pursuits that might never be pursued otherwise. Maybe. But just as likely is that more widely distributed wealth would result in more diversity of investment. The mega wealthy may be hogging too many resources, crowding out alternatives, and wasting a large portion of the world’s wealth on things less useful and productive than might otherwise be funded if their money were spread to others. Essentially investment becomes monopolistic. In fact, the empirical evidence does seem to suggest a slowdown in GDP growth when wealth inequity becomes too great. Higher taxes might help not hurt.
Warren has already put out a calculator that shows Gates would have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $5-6 billion. His net worth is currently estimated 106 billion. Lest anyone start believing that such an amount will completely deplete his assets in, oh say 10 years, it's instructive to know that his net worth actually increased $16 billion and that's AFTER he gave $35 billion to charity. I certainly appreciate his philanthropy, but let's not start losing sleep over the "hardships" of billionaires. I think he'll be just fine.
9
If warren is elected, will she close the current 3T hole in the deficit before she adds a 30T hole? Shouldn’t people who take out loans have to pay it back? You can’t just give a bunch of stuff away. Nobody does that.
4
@Vivien Hessel
By taxing the billionaires, we can reduce the deficit.
First, they are the people who "[took] out loans" by raiding the treasury, so it is fair.
Second, when the middle and working classes have greater financial security, the need for government spending on social services is reduced.
Lastly, the 99% will be paying more in taxes as their salaries increase.
It is a win-win.
1
. Sanders AND Warren are both Socialists and advocate for a revolution in our system. If your a progressive, i'm sure all your like-minded friends think Sanders or Warren can win. I'm a moderate Democrat and so are many of my hard working friends. We are not rich but we will never vote for a Socialist no matter how much free stuff they offer. The best way to reduce inequality is to raise the min wage to $15/hr, eliminate carried interest so hedge fund managers pay income tax at the same rate as the rest of us, and, lastly, make the income tax more progressive.
What people have has already had tax paid on it. And, honestly, how are you going to assess people's assets? How do we know how many assets everyone has? I could have a modest house and a collection of renaissance paintings. What if people just put their assets into gold of diamonds. Is Warren going to create an IRS police force to audit people's belongings. Are we going to go into people's houses and check? Will we go into their safe deposit boxes. We really need to think about what's practical and what we can possibly get done. We can't take another 4 years of this.
@Marc Plese explain "hat you already have already has a tax on it" - that is just totally not true.
What about the fact that a wealth tax has been tried in several European countries and failed?
And despite the fact that people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Marc Cuban earned their fortunes legally and have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, taxing the hell out of these and other billionaires won't even come close to funding Warren's plans to massively increase government spending. What Warren is not being honest about is that to fund her plans, taxes on the middle class would skyrocket.
Warren has never created a single job in her life. Her plans are entirely theoretical and aimed at utopian solutions, where everything is free and everyone is equal and happy, thanks to the wisdom of a benevolent, hugely powerful central government. Beware utopian solutions! Historically, government meddling in the economy on the scale Warren proposes has led to disaster. Beware of utopian solutions!
5
@Jeremy Shere
Yep, and let the Oligarchs continue to buy your government(and democracy) to serve strictly their interests at the expense of yours.
@Jeremy Shere I agree. The gigantic programs of the New Deal were such a DISASTER! They only brought prosperity to millions for decades. So Bad to let ordinary people, instead of thieves, have something. Boo Hoo
@Jeremy Shere All you Warren haters out there need to actually read what Warren's proposals are because your misstatement of her positions really undermine your credibility. Let start with - 2_6% over ten billion - how is that "taxing the hell" out of anyone?
I’m not a billionaire. Not a millionaire. But when I hear warren talk about devaluing the dollar to “compete” in trade, I think of the money i saved and feel like a fool. If it becomes worth 2/3 of its current value because of a deliberate currency devaluation, why did I bother to save? Warren is not for me. Oh, and the devaluation of currency idea is also a trump idea.
6
There are 602 billionaires in the US. Eighteen of them have signed on to a wealth tax.
There are 362 million of the rest of us. We can do this. (I hope)
6
We need to ask ourselves. Do we want:
a. A kleptocracy
b. An oligarchy
c. A plutocracy.
If we want none of above, but insist on maintaining our fragile democracy, we need to move toward near economic equality.
6
Enough of the bogus "trickle down theory" of economics.
All the promised benefits that middle and lower class have seen from the last tax cut for the wealthy families of America is nothing - the already too wealthy have only hoarded the money.
I'm tired of supporting the billionaires in their endless money accumulation addiction; trying to outdo their neighbors with more and more gigantic houses behind walls, yachts, private planes, golf courses, etc. - just to satisfy their egos and narcissism.
The way to really help the real America is to put the money (which has been going into the billionaires' hidden offshore accounts) into tangible projects to rebuild our crumbling highways, bridges, dams, potable water plants, clean up all the toxic polluted industrial/mining sites, etc. These projects will actually create real hands-on jobs that matter and create a better America for all.
4
Sadly the final say rests with voters who are increasingly fragmented into silos of political purity. Purity that breeds acrimony.
1
So the billionaires and their henchpeople in the Democratic party are going to keep saying that Warren and Sanders are "unelectable". The Times overall is going to be on that sentence like a dog on a bone in the hopes of creating a cultural meme to that effect. At least they are still publishing a few columnists with different opinions, but I doubt that will last.
4
“if Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, Bezos would have $48.8 billion instead of $160 billion, and Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion.”
Breaks my heart.
3
Billionaires also have learn how help the society that made them billionaire alive and functioning.
2
What's wrong with being a self-made billionaire....key words being self-made. They are to be lauded, not taken down a few pegs.
3
Isn't that a shame? How come the uber-rich folk don't want to pay it forward? How do they live with themselves in a country where poverty, homelessness, lack of decent jobs for "regular" folks and health-care coverage puts the United States behind many other developed countries. We have no social safety net. We are dismantling our protection agencies. We are trying to destroy our educatiion systems. But we sure got ourselves some billionaires! Bill Gates, you are not funny with your "just kidding" moment. Gerrymandering, gaslighting, out and out lying of our politicians in Washington. Gratuitous cruelty doesn't begin to describe what's going on in this country today. We voters are listening carefully for the truly progressive voices, no matter the economic/social strata.
5
The issue is not fairness in taxes. That is not the problem with Warren. The issue is the political message delivered by mass media owned and controlled by the billionaire classes. The problem is Sanders and Warren as they fight for supremacy on issues of fairness in taxation, to the benefit of the billionaires everywhere. They need to fight POTUS and his Administration, not each other. What a waste of precious time. It is so upsetting to see this ineffective and crowded Democratic field. It is so confusing. We are tired already. Who will lead the middle class out of this desert of misinformation and Republican lies?
1
If you look where are these Progressive voters get their support in NYC, it's usually the richer neighborhoods. The poorer neighborhoods, which often have high level of political engagement and largely minority voters, tend to vote for candidates that they have determined will support minority interest. The richer voters, who are usually NY Times readers, deride these voters as victims of Democratic machine manipulation and dupes to billionaire rhetoric.
I hope there are some NY Times readers who realize that supporting Warren can be a sign of upper income class solidarity. The idea that all Biden supporters are someone uninformed dupes is really insulting.
Welcome to: Oligarchs R Us.
It’s all about taxes, as opposed to, what will those taxes do for Americans.
1
Billionaire Mark Cuban said Elizabeth Warren is “selling shiny objects to divert attention from reality.”
Actually, the 39-year-old 0.1% Tax Cut Trickle-Down Fraud is the real shiny object that has sold America down the river so the rich could paint their toenails in fresh gold every morning while Grand Old Poverty swallowed up the countryside in a Republican Robber Baron Renaissance of modern feudalism.
Collapsed wages, vaporized pensions, lousy temp jobs by the tens of millions with zero benefits, the greatest healthcare corporate rip-off scam in the world, shy-high cell phone and internet bills for the masses, dilapidated roads, ancient airports, weak funding for schools, colleges, the IRS and government services....while Wall St. is treated like a privileged crook and subsidized Gas Oil Petroleum cooks the planet toward environmental oblivion.
Not to mention that the radical Republican Party works full-time to successfully suppress the vote, gerrymander the House, stack the courts and rig every election they set their sights on.
Warren's policies are a well-deserved course correction to 39 years of right-wing hijacking that have delivered economic violence to the unrich for four decades.
Warren's policies would merely return the USA to the center where the idea of the common good is actually recognized... and not reduced to a tip jar for billionaires in a charitable mood swing.
America has been ripped off by the right for too long.
Greed is not good; it's very bad.
14
If Warren wins the nomination and she loses to Trump, it will be because of the totality of her agenda:
1) Medicare-for-all
2) Forgiveness of all medical debt
3) Free college
4) Forgiveness of all education debt
5) Reparations
6) Free medical care for illegal aliens
Higher taxes for the wealthy is the most popular part of her agenda. But the above items add up to a politically toxic mix that would mean the best that can be hoped for is a nail-biter win over Trump, and the worst is what, the end of democracy? A Warren nomination means the Democratic Party is branded a far left party and the Senate will not flip, meaning the Warren agenda is dead-on-arrival. Listen to Pelosi on the political toxicity of Warren's agenda. Read Paul Krugman's latest column where he expresses misgivings about the political wisdom of pushing for Medicare-for-all.
3
The unfortunate truth is that a wealth tax, per se, is likely unconstitutional, based on Section 9 and the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5th Amendment to the Coinstitution (namely, the "Takings" clause, also prohibits seizure of property without just compensation. Billionaires individually have the right to speak their minds, to run for office and to call out those they disagree with without being criticized for acting purely in their self interest. To do so is just as demeaning and dismissive as accusing those advocating for slavery reparations, a universal basic income and other similar schemes of being motivated by their own greed. It seems the American political environment has deteriorated to the point where even NYTimes columnists resort to attacking the source of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. And, by the way, I am not a billionaire and I dont expect to become one any time soon, altho I do think Federal income taxes should be raised.
1
Imagine that! "The people's will". What a novel concept!
1
People in the south voted against Hillary Clinton and now someone more radical wants to take her place. Good luck. Democrats seem to have the worst political reality sense. Republicans are too good at knowing what will win even if ethically abhorrent re: Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. Democrats need a wake up call because they haven't even woken up from the 2016 Presidential election. They ignored middle class people screaming for jobs. They couldn't hear the screams. they said, "I'm with her". No they weren't.
3
If we continue to destroy the middle class we will end up like countries where the few rich people hide behind walled enclaves with armed guards and the poor masses will be outside living in poverty and abject misery. Enough is enough. That “wealth”trickling down on the rest of us is not rain.
2
In the NYT poll in 6 battleground states, Biden beats Trump in 4 out of 6; Sanders beats Trump in 3 out of 6, and Warren beats Trump in 1 out of 6.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
The latest polls in Wikipedia shows Sanders ahead in New Hampshire and Sanders will perform better in Iowa than the polls indicate, because only the most enthusiastic supports show up in caucuses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Sanders also leads Warren in the latest national poll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Biden's problem is that he is not doing well in either Iowa or New Hampshire and he has difficulty raising funds from the wealthy as well as the working class.
2
Great essay--thanks, Mr. Bouie!
1
The truth is that even if Sanders, much less Warren are elected with congress becoming majority Democrat, Billionaires will still be Billionaires when they were done. The unmitigated greed and lust for more is a destructive disease that undermines democracy, human rights, international relation and climate sanity. It is time for a return to representative government that includes citizens. It is time to dethrone corporate oligarchy.
1
Let the reign of terror begin. Off with our heads. When we built a hospital in Nepal five months after the earthquake the government in Kathmandu hadn’t even started to survey the damage. As philanthropists we take risks that pontificators can’t understand. Keep shooting at us and we’ll move to a more rational community like Zug.
The main threat to the world's economy is that the Republicans think that Donald is doing a great job, and want him to do more of it.
Precisely because people like Gates are grumbling discontent means that Warren is on to something good. As far as I am concerned, the howling of Gates et al. is the ringing endorsement of Warren we are all looking for. Scream your head off Bill Gates, we're not listening.
1
I tire of the adage that 'I vote for the person'. It's so ignorant of what politics are: policy - legislation. What is the policy? What will the legislation look like? That's reality.
Yes, it might have been more fun to have a beer with Bush than Gore, but Jesus, who do you want to lead a country? People ask which Democrat I like. Well, I want a fairly realistic one; one that will be truthful about what needs to happen to save a planet in dire need of help ecologically, and how do we get closer to actual equality and community and the 'more perfect Union'. That's all. Real.
Warren's great. Go, girl. I like your style (though a bit know-it-all and lecturing at times). But, really, I like your politics and policies and ideas of legislation. Grow up, America.
1
Can you imagine trying to live on less than $15 billion? That would be terrible.
1
So to follow the logic, we should all just be ok with Trump since it is apparently the will of the people.
It’s repugnant to hear billionaires crying about having to pay more taxes. Put them in the shoes of a single mom with two jobs who is still struggling live a proud life. Put them in the shoes of the millions of children who live in poverty, some homeless because rents are outrageous, opportunities are scarce, education is lacking in quality and experience hunger on a daily basis. It makes me sick! I pray that our population wakes up and is able to understand that the current administration has nothing to offer the non million/billionaire class. I pray that they vote for their own best interest so they can live more prosperous lives with less financial and social stress.
2
So, let's say I make 2000 dollars an hour every day since the birth of christ, I'd be worth about 8 billion dollars, there are still 30 people who would be richer than me now in the world. That okay with everyone?
3