As Twitchy told you earlier, Lauren Duca — who seems to be under the impression that there are lots of people who think she’s intelligent and care what she thinks — touted the New York Times’ conclusion that modern-day billionaires would’ve been just fine if Elizabeth Warren’s unconstitutional wealth tax had been enacted in 1982:
Apparently we’re supposed to think that makes unconstitutional wealth taxes OK or something.
If Warren’s wealth tax were in effect since 1982
Bill Gates would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion
Bezos would have had $48.8 billion last year instead of $160 billion
Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion https://t.co/aL58jfQiAs
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) November 11, 2019
Tweeter @back_ttys is among many people who aren’t impressed by the prospect of billionaires being taken “down a few billion pegs”:
Why are people taking this seriously, as if nothing else would have changed due to these taxes? https://t.co/iTxsWJwG6D
— BT (@back_ttys) November 11, 2019
Also those amounts are drops in the bucket relative to the amount of new spending Warren wants to enact.
— BT (@back_ttys) November 11, 2019
Bleeding today’s billionaires dry would still leave Medicare for All funding trillions of dollars short. And Medicare for All is only one of many unicorn fantasy policies Warren wants to enact.
All of this leads @back_ttys to a pretty important conclusion:
Focusing on how it affects the net worth of billionaires almost makes it seem like this is more about punishment than funding the government.
— BT (@back_ttys) November 11, 2019
We’d say he’s pretty much nailed it.
Envy is a powerful thing. https://t.co/ZlHpfhYas2
— BT (@back_ttys) November 11, 2019
And allowing yourself to be ruled by the politics of envy is a recipe for disaster.
