The roll out has cost her polling numbers…
But she is happy to pursue her plan to tax the rich for some social programs ….
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax would slow the United States economy, reducing growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade, an outside analysis of the plan estimates.
The preliminary projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which will be unveiled on Thursday in Philadelphia, is the first attempt by an independent budget group to forecast the economic effects of the tax that has become a centerpiece of Ms. Warren’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The assessment found that if the tax raised as much new federal revenue as Ms. Warren intends, and if the proceeds went toward reducing the federal debt, annual economic growth would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a decade.
To put the finding in context: Penn Wharton estimated in 2017 that President Trump’s tax cut would increase economic growth by roughly 0.06 percentage points per year over a decade, an effect that was much smaller than White House officials predicted. Its estimate of Ms. Warren’s policy implies the wealth tax would have an effect that is three times as large as the Trump tax cuts — but in the opposite direction.
Could an open flame actually cause burns?
This is a rather nonsensical comparison.
Rather than evading the issue, please explain why econometric studies have found that countries with more equal income and wealth distributions have outperformed those with more unequal distributions.
If you are very wealthy, you have an incentive to make safer investments instead of a large percent of your income in companies in the stock market. That is part of the reason why more conservative and unequal economic systems underperform those that encourage and invest in economic growth.
I suspect that The economy would do well in a Warren administration – as it did well under Clinton and Obama.
Not sure if you are asking this of me or james or the author of the piece.
To start with, which country or countries do you believe have outperformed the US?
2018 US GDP growth is actually below-average (107 out of 193 countries) when compared to the rest of the world. I suggest you do a search for “GDP growth by country” for more information.
Here is an article form a conservative source:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-income-inequality-is-holding-back-economic-growth-in-one-chart-2018-04-05
I certainly do not believe our economy is growing at the capacity it should and definitely wasn’t under Obama or Clinton either.
That’s far different though than claiming any other country has a stronger economy than us.
I would ask what country has a system of government/economy that you would find preferable?
Yes -The economy under Trump has grown slower than under either Obama or Clinton.
It is rather foolish to suggest that no country has a stronger economy than us. How are you defining “stronger economy”? GDP growth is typically the number one measure of how the economy is doing and we are below-average. There are other measures that we can use, but I still can’t imagine why you think our economy is the strongest in the world? Please explain your thoughts.
So True Z…..
I just hope Trump doesn’t fuck things up….
But it is softening
Donald Trump
The debt king is NOT THE ONE to save a floundering US Economy
He’d probably be trying to get his and hop on a plane to Moscow….
Again, who will weep for the poor poor billionaires?
Should a billionaire be allowed to exist?
Bernie Sanders says no.
No one is suggesting they be exterminated. If the same people who are now billionaires were 950 millionaires the world would indeed go on.
But go ahead and obsess over their well being in such a hypothetical situation.
. I’ve got better things to do.
He didn’t say they should be killed. He simply said that people should not be allowed to become billionaires and that their wealth beyond a certain point should be confiscated.
Agree or not? Simple question.
No….
The statement is anti-capitalist in a Capitalist country…
Should it be against the law to make money LEGITIMATELY in America?
The question SHOULD scare Americans….
Agree totally james.
This may be your best post in the history of your online existence.
I’m a Democrat…
I’ve sent Joe Biden money…
There is NO damn way Warren can raise the money she wants without the cost me of a middle class tax increase …
Sanders at least in up front, He’s out too raise my taxes ….
Confiscated? No
Taxed heavily?
Yes.
But still, after all the taxes, if someone likes their Billions, they can keep their Billions?
I would not agree with that position of Sanders. I also think there is no chance it would become law – even I don’t agree with it and income inequality is a major concern of mine.
Yes, no chance it becomes law.
Also no chance-
Medicare for All
Free College for All
The Wall
Not in the next four years. Or at least, not as has initially been proposed.
No weeping….
There will be NO major taxation of the rich….
It just won’t happen….
It’s working for Warren with her base…
But THAT base does NOT pick the nominee and running on increasing taxes IS a non-starter….
Warren’s numbers have dropped slightly since her program roll out…
So, the person who becomes the Democrats’ nominee will not advocate higher taxes on the rich?
Comeon….
Warren and Sanders ARE running on this….
Biden isn’t against raising them somewhat….
Rich Democrats aren’t against some form of increase…
THAT is NOT what Warren and Sanders are trying to sell…
They want to go back to the ole’ Reagan years of double digit increasing the tax rate…
No American Congress is going there….
Not Republicans OR Democrats…
But it’s good red meat for progressives and those lower income people that don’t really vote too much…
Should Billionaires be allaowed to exist?Sure
Should they pay more in taxes?
Yes
Sanders wants them to pay so much they cannot be billionaires.
I can try asking again- How much money does someone have to make to not have it be enough to have their taxes raised?
Do I personally care how much more they pay?No
Will they still be incredibly wealthy?Yes
Is this much ado about nothing?Yeah pretty much.
Yep. Much ado about nothing.
Let me ask CG– Should people who work full time still be under the poverty level?
That’s a question that has much more relevance than how much a billionaire pays in taxes. To me at least.
People who work full time and are successful should certainly make enough per market demand and experience mobility to render such a possibility moot.
Blah blah market. Blah blah.
Typical Republican response.
There is no reason in the world why anyone working full-time should be making minimum wage. If someone starts off that way, they should be able to demonstrate their worth and get a raise very quickly. If not, they may not be in the right job.
But if you are formulating a question about someone who may be working full-time while serving time in prison, then I really do not care if they are making less money while they are serving that time as a ward of the government. There should also be opportunities present for them to find gainful employment when they are released.
Yeah you have pretty much no concept of poverty in America.
I’m not surprised.
What’s the best way to lift people out of poverty? Clearly, it is democratic capitalism and free markets. It has done it for literally millions throughout our history. In no other country than America can someone come close to hoping to escape poverty as often and as overwhelmingly as people do.
What is something that has sentenced too many to the horrors of poverty and generational despair?
The heavy hand of a well-intentioned government.
Too much government makes poverty worse. Freedom and individual initiative help people escape and contrary to your theories, many rich people are more than willing to help them do that, whether it is through the jobs they create or the charitable help for those in need they provide.
Rather than slogans, how about concrete examples? What specifically would you like to cut? We might even agree on some things.
But let’s start with healthcare since you are opposed to a government-run solution. Using your right wing slogan that you have said so many times that you now believe, does the government providing healthcare sentence “too many to the horrors of poverty and generational despair”? If so, please explain.
Does unemployment insurance sentence too many to the horrors of poverty and generational despair? What is the solution for those who lost their job and the $1000 per month of unemployment insurance has run out?
What’s the alternative to the market?
Communism. It seems pretty simple.
You do understand that we have a mixed economy or are you opposed to the government run parts of our economy.
The government should only do what the private sector cannot and at all times should be limited to the level of government closest to the people in order to achieve that specific goal.
So you are Opposed to such things as say Medicare.After all the private sector “could” provide medical care for the aged,at a hefty price of course.
No. If people when they are working are paying into the system, then they have the right to the benefits when they reach a certain age. Of course, most people on Medicare, such as my parents, also have to have additional coverage.
For people who are young (I probably don’t even qualify anymore), will there be enough money in the system left for them?
With people living longer and healthier lives, and all the positives that come from that, we should realize that a system sent up close to a century ago, may need to be reformed for future generations.
So your statement that”the government should ONLY(emphasis added) do what the private sector cannot“isnt always true.
Not sure what you are referring to.
The private sector can’t maintain a military or a police force, etc. etc. I have never claimed to be a Libertartian.
If this is about Medicare/Social Security, I have already explained that I do not consider that “socialism” as people have paid into the system for which they will reap the benefits at a future time.
Of course a private sector can create a police force. Government can contract it out. But like health insurance, it doesn’t mean that the private sector can do it effectively or in the public interest.
I don’t get that connection at all.
A police force is a public service in which people pay into through taxes designed to keep people from injuring another. It’s essentially what government is supposed to do (but at the local level to the most extent possible.)
Again, not talking about Medicare or Social Security here. I have explained why… but Auto insurance and health insurance and homeowners insurance and pet insurance and everything else that should be encouraged is best left out of the hands of government and where people can have choice and flexibility.
Gotta go.
I agree that auto , homeowners and pet insurance is best run my private carriers, but not health insurance.
I reiterate if Billionaires taxes are raised?
I couldn’t care less.
They’ll be fine and still incredibly wealthy.
Actually it’s rather amusing that people are “concerned” about this.
What about multi-millionaires?
Low-millionaires?
$200,000.00 per year?
Is there a specific cut-off point where you are willing to say? “These people should not have their taxes raised?”
I haven’t “researched” it enough.
Wasn’t that your response to the Trump Tax cut for the wealthy.
However when your “research “ concluded that the Trump tax cut for the wealthy was a “good” thing!I wasnt overly surprised.
I am asking more of a general philosophical question than an immediate reaction to specific legislation.
It was the Congressional Republican tax cut (I don’t give Trump any credit for it) and when I did hear enough about it, I determined it was sound policy. It seems to have helped the economy for now.
Trump proposed it and made it a centerpiece of his campaign.Of course he lied about it and said it was for the Middle Class.It wasn’t Most of the benefits went to the rich.
So in your opinion it was “good “ policy?
Understandably then, in your view ,tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the economy.
I believe in tax cuts across the board.
In the case of for the wealthy, I do believe it stimulates the economy, allows more to be given to charity, and creates jobs.
But if someone is rich and thinks they are not paying enough in taxes, I would totally encourage them to voluntarily send as much as they want to the federal government. Our government should actively promote that choice.
A tax cut (or a spending increase) always helps the economy in the short term. That is very conventional economic thought. In this case Trump did both, It is just that growing deficits are not good long-term policy.
I believe in tax cuts and spending cuts. There is much the Trump Admin has done in terms of spending that I think is misguided.
Perhaps though, those that have an interest in learning from those who are less well off than we might be should talk to some people who presently rely on coal mining to make a living and understand why those jobs, in the here and now, are so important to them and their families, and why becoming White Water Rafting guides may not be realistic alternatives.
I probably grew up poorer than you did. I recall my mom giving my dad money to go food shopping and telling him to be careful how he spent it because it was every penny we had.
So I will be happy to talk with you if you genuinely want to know what it was like to grow up poor. Coal miners make a relatively good salary, but those jobs are scarce and will become more scarce in the future – whether the country is run by Democrats or Republicans.
Republicans who USED to be about smaller government and less spending are now guilty blowing up the budget…
I disagree that Trump and the GOPer’s ‘so called’ tax cut was actually one…
Middle class Americans lost deductions in blue states…
THAT was a INCREASE in our taxes in Blue states…
Due the tax ‘cut’?
I lost the education for this website…
Anyone with a home business lost their deduction …
Anyone who lives in a state with high state and local taxes had their education capped…
One of the reasons the economy IS stalling IS the ‘tax cuts’ that weren’t….
james, I am interested to know why you think you should get a tax deduction for this website, but I might regret asking.
the deduction WAS for small home businesses..
it’s gone ….
they gave us the standard deduction which ain’t shit in New York ….
This blog is not a business. It’s a hobby. Come on now.
Remember those Russian models that used to be advertised on here?
Instead of worrying about a tax deduction ,James might ought to worrying about a federal investigation.
Who paid for those ads?
And how did they even know about this site?
He, he, he
Maybe Trump saw the ads?
Much ado about nothing until people like james realizes that those talking about taxing the billionaires into submission might also be after the middle class, and then Democrats lose elections as a result.
Then, maybe not so Seinfeldian.
So if you work full time barely pay your rising rent, have no insurance or a crappy policy and get sick what is “the magic of the market” going to do to save you?
If someone gets sick, they probably cannot work full time, so you are mixing your scenarios now.
I have not suggested there should be a societal safety net for those in need
Most people who are working full-time thankfully do not get sick and nobody who works full time should desire to live their life on minimum wage or be led to believe that will be their only option.
You do realize many people making over the minimum wage still live in poverty depending on the cost of living in their area.
So it’s possible to do well at your job, be promoted with a raise, and still be under the poverty level.
The issue might be related to the cost of living in the area and what is causing that. Also, it depends on how you are defining “poverty.”
I certainly know that there are parts of the country and parts of my metropolitan area that would not be smart for me to try to live in financially.
Well depending on the severity of their illness. Some are still working even after being diagnosed with certain conditions but are still racking up huge medical bills.
Like I said. You don’t seem to understand poverty in America in 2019.
I support insurance. As I have explained before, an ideal situation would be people owning their own insurance policy that is not tied to where they are working.
Obamacare!
Obamacare sucks. I am talking about something that people can control themselves and see the doctor they want and not have rationed care, etc.
Obamacare IS the American healthcare program…
It’s what we have…
Despite GOPer efforts to “repeal it’ that have mysteriously gone away ?
It needs to supported and any fault fixed…
Reinventing the wheel isn’t gonna happen…
The biggest fault that needs to be fixed is that it is too expensive
The two biggest faults of ObamaCare is that it is too expensive (we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world) and it doesn’t cover everyone (unlike all other developed countries). Other than those two enormous flaws, it is fine. Please come up with suggestions on how it can be fixed.
Americans ARE getting older….
Healthcare jobs are plentiful….
Healthcare workers are NOT low end earners….
Those policies are exceedingly expensive, and they often provide less coverage than the buyers think. And these policies do not give any incentive to providers to reduce the number of doctor visits, or the quantity of opioids they dispel. The more drugs they prescribe, the more money they make. In my opinion, what you suggest is the worst possible solution.
Probably….
But it’s what we have….
Congress is unable to do anything…
The opioids thing is coming under pressure for law enforcement and law suits…
True…on the presctiptions and the drug companies money….
But?
Single payer government run healthcare isn’t going anywhere….
Again?
Fix what WE HAVE HAD in place for the last decade….
What is your plan to make ObamaCare less exoensive and to cover more people. From a selfish perspective, I don’t want to wait forever for shitty healthcare coverage that costs a fortune,
I’m NOT the expert….
But one would image the original goal of getting MORE people on the plan by an exhaustive effort to bring people in would be the first action…
The MORE people?
I would assume the lower the costs?
Also an effort to get drug prices lowered….
And working with the states to increase Medicare coverage….
Lower the costs?
Haha
Yeah insurance companies are notorious for lowering the costs.
And yes James you can rant and rave all you want, single payer health care is coming.likely sooner than you think.
Keep dreaming Jack…..
As I previously have explained, I believe that healthcare is one area that the government can do more effectively and than private insurance carriers. In the short term, it will cost more (especially in the short term) to convert to a government-run system, but in the long term it will save money. In the long term, there is no acceptable reason that we shouldn’t be able to cut our costs by at least 50% while increasing the quality of medical care and covering everybody. And I mean that literally.
But we shouldn’t just blame insurance companies for the high costs. How about providers for requesting more office visits than is needed, or for providing opioids when a cheaper – and more effective substitute – such as medical marijuana would suffice? How about surgeons for performing unnecessary surgeries when rehab would be cheaper and more effective. How about attorneys for the high cost of medical malpractice insurance which ultimately gets passed on to the buyer? How about juries for ridiculously huge awards for physician malpractice? How about hospitals for spending fortunes for obtaining the ability to provide quality health care for any type of medical care – when they should instead just say “We recommend ABC Hospital for this procedure”.
And perhaps most important, how about politicians (and voters) for not addressing the many problems for the high cost of healthcare (including some I mentioned above) and who instead rely on ambiguous slogans such as “tweak Obamacare” or “use private markets”. We have got to do better. Much better.
Hey Z?
You mind me making a post with ur comment?
Sure – I usually don’t read all of the comments, so you don’t need my permission to request my authorization to make a post of my comments if you would like to do so. Going forward, if you ever would like to make a post of my comments, just do so without asking.
Thanks Z….
WSJ..
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled sweeping tax proposals that would push federal tax rates on some billionaires and multimillionaires above 100%.
That prospect raises questions for taxpayers and the broader economy that experts are starting to ponder: Under which circumstances would taxpayers have to pay those rates? How might that change their behavior? And would investment and economic growth suffer?
More…
“Obamacare sucks”
Whenever I hear a Republican say that I think of the formwe high school football hero now overweight on his couch criticizing the pro quarterback.
In other words–you had your chance and you blew it!!
That only would make sense if I were a recent Republican Member of Congress.
We ought to have a thread about the Myles Garrett/Mason Rudolph incident.
While I did not grow up in poverty (and also certainly did not grow up wealthy) I think I probably know more about dealing with serious ongoing medical issues than you may realize.
But this is a philosophical discussion about the role of government. It shouldn’t be about anything personal.
Well them you should be aware medical expenses are the number one reason Americans fall into poverty.
I think that’s much more worthy of discussion than a billionaire paying a couple million more in taxes.
It’s a long way from a billionaire “paying a couple million more in taxes” than a leading candidate wanting to confiscate anything over 950 mil , which is the number you threw out.
I would be totally fine with billionaires having their taxes raised by 2 mil a year or maybe even more than that, as long as Democrats agree to only tax billionaires and to leave everyone else alone.
Deal?
Taxation and spending cannot be discussed in isolation, which is what you are doing.
We know from other country’s experience that we can significantly reduce medical costs if we adopt say the Canada model. Of course we should prefer a system that costs us an additional $750 in taxes to save $1000 in medical cost expenditures.
No deal.
Two million extra to a billionaire is equivalent to about a hundred dollars to an ever age person.
It’s nothing
How about 100 million?Thepoor ol billionaire can easily afford it and will probably make it back in afew months.He can probably hang in that long!
What a bunch of foolishness.Wortied about a damn Billionaire.
Republicans sure are defensive of the billionaires.
Bring up the point that people working full time are still living in poverty? They get uncomfortable. Case in point CG’s reply to me turning the discussion around yesterday.
The overwhelming majority of a billionaire’s “earnings” are based on the return of their investments. A 5% return per year on a $1,000,000,000 is $50,00,000 per year. Now exactly what did the billionaire do to “earn” that $50,000,000 (other than have the fortune of parents, grandparents, or great grandparents who made that fortune)?
And where did the $50,000,000 per year come from? Well, it came largely from the workers who work their asses off each day at sometimes two or three jobs for corporations so that shareholders like the billionaire can keep their lifestyle.
If the government got an extra $10m in taxes from each billioanaire (the word “extra” assumes that they are currently paying any taxes -which might not be true), we could substantially improve the quality of life for millions.
I can understand James’s grave concern that a 2% wealth tax is something that Democrats have not historically advocated, but an economic system should not be designed for the wealthiest people. And true Democrats understand that.
We’ll see….
My bet is on the millionaires as long as it takes money for lawmakers to run for office…
Health insurance is not like home insurance or a part of auto insurance because it isn’t providing funds to repair or replace a personal possession with a determinable value and in the case of another part of auto insurance — the medical and disability costs that arise from an accident.
It is more like the compulsory part of auto insurance that covers second-and third-party liability for accidents. Without nearly-universal auto liability coverage, the victim of an accident might well end up trying to collect from someone without means who is financially judgement-proof.
When those who have no health coverage get proper medical care, then the public and private health of the whole community benefits.