Elizabeth Warren likes to be known as the Democrat candidate with a “plan” for everything. One of Warren’s latest plans is for a so-called Blue New Deal (in addition to the Green New Deal which apparently isn’t comprehensive or expensive enough). However, Warren’s still pushing some of her previous plans, and one of which is a “wealth tax.”
An analysis of Warren’s wealth tax has found that her campaign’s numbers are way off:
"Elizabeth Warren’s signature “wealth tax” would bring in at least $1 trillion less in new government revenue than the Democratic presidential candidate estimates while ultimately shrinking the economy over the next 30 years" @APWillWeissert CX on Trilion https://t.co/pmfekULSYP
— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) December 12, 2019
WASHINGTON (AP) — Elizabeth Warren’s signature “wealth tax” would bring in at least $1 trillion less in new government revenue than the Democratic presidential candidate estimates while ultimately shrinking the economy over the next 30 years https://t.co/HJm9xDJSnA
— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) December 12, 2019
Color us 1/1024ths shocked!
Wow. So not only did she fail the test of health care, now we learn she has failed the test of tax policy as well.
I'm old enough to remember when the "experts" said she was running the best campaign of the cycle. ?https://t.co/o6FCi1COYB
— Chris D. Jackson (@ChrisDJackson) December 12, 2019
More from the Associated Press:
But some potential hurdles of doing so were on display earlier Thursday, when the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which provides nonpartisan analysis of public policy proposals, released findings showing that Warren’s wealth tax will raise between $2.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion over 10 years. That’s as much as $1.4 trillion less than Warren’s campaign estimates.
The analysis also concludes that the new taxes would cause the economy to contract between 0.9% and 2.1% by 2050 and says the new tax would reduce “private capital formation” enough to drive the U.S. economy’s average wage down between 0.9% and 2.3%, even affecting households not rich enough to qualify for the tax.
Maybe some intrepid reporter can ask the “I’ve got a plan for that” if she’s got a plan for how to respond after her original plans backfire horribly.
You don't say? It's why most European countries that have tried a wealth tax have ultimately abandoned it.
— Andrea Somerville (@asomer) December 12, 2019
But it's the thought that counts, right Professor? https://t.co/40uvjxok66
— Steve Rasch (@steverasch) December 12, 2019
You know what's really tricky about taxation?
The wealthy are the most capable at avoiding it.
The poor and middle class are the least capable. https://t.co/VJQ3yK2Vtd
— Depressing Dawkins but with a ? (@TheTriarii) December 12, 2019
Welp. https://t.co/fIGUShz7Ln
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) December 12, 2019
Damn. I thought that bridge offer was real.
— Mayakovsky’s Ghost (@Loneprotester) December 12, 2019
Warren has no shortage of them to sell, that’s for sure.
