Home | About | Donate

New Poll Finds Majority of Americans Across Political Spectrum Back Warren's Ultra Millionaire Tax

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/29/new-poll-finds-majority-americans-across-political-spectrum-back-warrens-ultra

Senators Warren and Sanders:
Please unite your forces and ideas, work out your differences, and win in 2020. The United States and the World needs a way out from the neoliberal calamity.

That’s my 2 cents. :slight_smile:

Peace.
ths.

9 Likes

Quoting Warren voicing Bernie’s idea’s and platform!!! Which he has stood for his whole career! What is wrong with this picture???

14 Likes

At a rally in Iowa this week, Warren suggested Bloomberg thought it would be “a lot cheaper to spend a few hundred million dollars just buying the presidency” than to pay just two percent of his $54 billion wealth to help narrow the wealth gap in the United States.

That is my 2 cents worth. Liz nailed it!

2 Likes

In the 1950s, the top income-tax rate hit 92%, which applied to earnings above roughly $2 million, adjusted for inflation.
Still, the wealthiest 1% of filers paid an effective income-tax rate of only 16.9%, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. By 2016 the top rate was 39.6%, but the richest percentile had an effective rate of 26.9%.
Meanwhile, the overall share of income taxes paid by the top 1% has increased, from 26% in 1986 to 37% in 2016.

While I don’t oppose Warren’s idea per se, it’s in theory an easier sell to look to corporations first, and then to individuals.

I am skeptical very many people let themesevels be subject to the 92% rates. There is some data on actual taxes paid from the past and I recall though they paid more than they do now it wasn’t twice the percentage more (and I’m talking about the very rich - those that have most of thier income in the top bracket).

I am a bit skeptical of the wealth tax - I actually tend to agree with Andrew Yang on this. I’m not 100% opposed, but it is going to mean a jump in the complexity of the tax process and a whole new slew of schemes for the rich to undervalue their assets. For sure we should a) raise the marginal tax tables - not necessarily to Eisenhower levels, but higher - at least a top rate of 60% or so. And capital gains taxed at same rate as income. And a whole lot of other financial reform like public banking, reinstating Glass Steigal, limits on the crazy financial products that can be offered and so on.

4 Likes

Warren’s “ultra millionaire tax” has great emotional appeal, but as Yang and Corker have pointed out implementation is the problem. Both of them have referenced similar efforts in EU nations that failed, citing how easy it is to hide assets or just lie, which creates the need for an enforcement bureaucracy.

While I agree with the idea I’m sceptical about making it work.

1 Like

Several questions come to mind on this new poll and the focus of this piece on Warren… Did the NYT focus exclusively on Warren’s “wealth tax” and ignore Bernie? Why does this piece not include Bernie’s wealth-tax proposals in the conversation as contrast rather than seemingly parrot the Times and its narrow-focus poll?

"Sen. Bernie Sanders has unveiled his plan to directly tax the wealth of millionaires and billionaires — and it goes substantially further than Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to do the same."

"(Sander’s) proposal would cut the wealth of billionaires in the United States in half in 15 years and entirely close the gap in wealth growth between billionaires and the average American family, according to University of California Berkeley economists"

Don’t think for a moment the Times serves any demographic or interest other than their clientele - anti Bernie forces, great wealth, financial parasites, DP “centrism”, and its desire and agenda to again sabotage Sanders candidacy and millions of Americans who see through the duopoly charade and fraud!

17 Likes

It’s only my opinion, but Sanders and Warren come at the problem from slightly different ideologies.

Warren is a “capitalist to [her] bones,” and believes in “markets,” which to me means that, e.g., health care is a “market” to be exploited for profit and the accumulation of wealth. From Wikipedia, this definition of “markets”:

"In mainstream economics , the concept of a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. The exchange of goods or services, with or without money, is a transaction.

The same goes for education, housing, food, etc. All of these are “markets” to be invested in and each transaction profited from. To make this more palatable to the exploited, she says we will tax the accumulated wealth, pick out a few areas of the most glaring inequality, and bring a handful of deserving individuals on board with some temporary partial assistance programs while leaving the structure which has created the inequality untouched, so that the few at the top can readily replenish their hoards. In between those two demographics, you’re on your own to negotiate, hunt for deals, and pay up.

Sanders, on the other hand, is much more of a Roosevelt New Dealer. To my knowledge he has never actually attacked capitalism, but rather only those who abuse its rewards. He doesn’t like the massively unequal accumulation of wealth by a few while the masses struggle and do without. He would institute programs that tax that wealth to provide the basics such as health care, housing, and education. In other words, he would change the system to provide to the working class those necessities that the capitalists refuse to provide for. It’s an end run, going around the owners, taking money from them to pay for what the worker, were s/he paid a fair wage, would be able to provide for themselves. But (again to my knowledge) Sanders has never talked about nationalizing businesses and ending capitalism, or even advocating for a drastic change to employee ownership.

It seems that many things are called socialism these days, but in reality we all know that sharing the burden for the benefit of the entire community has always been a part of the U.S. We have always had public, taxpayer supported roads, libraries, police and fire departments, and schools. All of these were seen as necessary to a functioning society, and too important to left to the profiteers.

So just imagine a completely privatized highway “market,” run like the health care "market’ we have today. Try to imagine driving a mind-boggling maze of toll roads across town every day, let alone across the country.

How long would a society accept that?

6 Likes

TWO can NOT win ONE nomination!

Wafflin’ Warren has gotten this far?

5 Likes

Emphyrio, the fix is in! We are watching a redux of “Anyone but Bernie” in spades!

10 Likes

A wealth tax, if implementable, would be a nice complement to:

  1. A massive inheritance tax for wealth over several million
  2. A large increase in the capital gains tax
  3. A super-aggressive progressive in the income tax
7 Likes

INCOME tax versus a tax on WEALTH is the key.

Yes, tax heavily income over a million a year.
And, begin taxing Wealth. Yes, dara and Yang are correct. This could become complex. And, yes, the wealthy will find loopholes. But that’s no reason to concede.

Bernie’s right. There’s no good reason for billionaires to even exist.

4 Likes

Bernie for president, and Warren his VP.
I’d vote for that ticket.

1 Like

Democrats these days are also proposing to raise the regular income-tax rate, the corporate tax-rate, the capital-gains-tax rate, the dividend-tax rate, the death-tax and the payroll-tax rates, while creating a new wealth tax, a new financial-transaction tax, a new carbon tax and a new pharmaceutical tax, even as they would repeal 100% business expensing and the 20% income exclusion for so-called pass-through firms. I have probably missed a few others.

As usual, the question Democrat’s won’t answer: Should the top 1% pay half of all income taxes? Two thirds? Three fourths? Where does their “fair share” end. If Democrats sweep the 2020 elections, we are sure to find out.

That’s exactly what I had in mind. And, Bernie’s age is going to be a concern, so he should also announce that he will retire after one term, passing the reins to Warren.

Peace.
ths.

1 Like

That’s fine as long as Bernie’s leadership qualities rub off on her and her stolen ideas from him are extended.

3 Likes

Thank you for your reply and cogent discussion, and I agree with most of your points. Yes there are differences between Sanders and Warren, but we must recognize that USA is not going to go full blown socialist in 2020.

There are enormous forces arrayed against the common folks. The constant harping on popularity of Biden on the slightly less odious side is unbelievable. The insertion of Bloomberg into the mix tells us that any movement away from neoliberalism is going to be fought very hard by the PTB.

Maybe, just maybe, a combined Sanders/Warren candidacy may garner strong enough popular support that may prevail against the DNC shenanigans. That’s my hope.

Peace.
ths.

1 Like