Home | About | Donate

Warren Forces Issue of Massive Economic Inequality Into 2002 Debate With 'Ultra-Millionaire Tax'

Warren Forces Issue of Massive Economic Inequality Into 2002 Debate With 'Ultra-Millionaire Tax'

Julia Conley, staff writer

Weeks into a national conversation over the possibility of taxing the wealthiest Americans at far higher rates in order to correct severe income inequality in the U.S., Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made clear that the issue will be addressed in the 2020 presidential election, unveiling a plan to tax assets over $50 million.


These tycoons can’t give up their position on the ladder so they don’t practice philanthropy any more. The solution to that, other than a creative tax plan, is for them to band together and make medicare paid in full for the next 150 years. Help make solvent a 100% coverage healthcare plan for all Americans.
After a project is bought and paid for they can go back to playing the “I’ve got more than you’ve got” game of thrones and not worry about a tax they would hate.


" Warren Forces Issue of Massive Economic Inequality Into 2002 Debate With ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax’"

Somebody fat fingered that lede. Supposed to be 2020 maybe?

1 Like

Bernie was talking about “Massive Economic Inequality” at every campaign rally he had. Who did Warren endorse?..Hillary.


Maybe if she is elected, Hillary could serve as Secretary of the Treasury?


Wind’s blowing in the right direction.
Now, where’s the tax relief for those on the other end?

1 Like

Way to go Liz.

Your endorsement of this would have been much more effective 3 years ago when Bernie’s campaign was surging.

You could have even been his VP.

Then first woman president 4 years later.

Better luck in your next life.


Only if your total net worth is more then $10 million.

It is great to see these proposals. Usually the devil is in the details and there are lots of those. I would like to see a simple Wealth Cap, decided yearly by popular online referendum, with all cap excesses distributed equally, electronically, among all citizens.


If you have assets over $50 million, it will apply to all of your houses, I should hope. And all of your planes, yachts, etc.


I like that too. Reach for the stars, but when you get there, not to try and own the world. Anything beyond the cap goes to employee pay or benefits. Anything that doesn’t go there gets a very high tax burden and in that way helps our country along.


Kudos to Senator Warren for proposing a wealth-based tax rather than an income-based tax increase. I am uneasy with so many tax proposals I see that focus solely on earned income, since most of the untaxed or low-taxed money is not from earned income.


Frankly, I am tired of seeing tax cuts as social legislation altogether. Civil society means paying taxes. I’d rather pay more and increase security and opportunity collectively than hope for the same individually. Heaven on earth may not happen, but life could be better.


Ahh. Reagan’s Golden Shower economics. And he also started UA drug testing for the government and now about 40%-60 of people do it for pee-employment.

What was his urine kink all about?

1 Like

Distributing Wealth Cap excesses equally to all citizens would be relatively simple. A Universal Unconditional Basic Income of perhaps a few thousand dollars monthly instead of the mere one thousand being considered.

Giving the Wealth Cap excesses to bureaucrats and politicians to play with is counterproductive. We worked for scraps and the 1% took it all. Now we want it back.

“Every man a king”, as Huey P. Long said, and every woman a queen.

A question remains. With a UBI do you want to do the $1000 and force people to have to work anyway, or do the $3000 and let people keep jobs open for others, with the option of working of course… If someone wants to eek out an existance on $1000 there may be something like poor folks syndrome. And would that cost the state too much to address?

One thing the “progressive” left does not address is the link between income inequity and habitat collapse due to overpopulation.

Over here are the articles about climate change. Over here are the articles about income inequity.
The link between people trashing the ecology and income inequality is ignored in favor of slogans.

No matter which system you have, if resources run out, then you’re screwed. And right now every city in the world is using pretty much the same resources. We all use the same cars, houses, high rises, computers, highways, etc. and that all requires the same resources. Those resources are quickly running out, or being poisoned. Or it’s causing massive habitat disruptions for all species.

You could fix income inequity with these social programs IF people first stop having more kids.

You could fix habitat collapse with government programs IF people stop having more kids.

If not, then nope. It is simple math. The planet is finite.

None of the candidates talk about the real world problem that the planet is undergoing massive disruptions which cause massive social unrest and famines.

Instead, we’re led to believe that the American dream is still, have a family, work hard, and you can have everything you want and need. Just vote in the right heterosexist dream person.

The planet says otherwise, right now, today. This article should also say, want income equity, have zero children.

This is a good start… but I am hoping (perhaps against hope) that some candidate will advocate slightly higher tax rates for those who earn over $100,000 and higher rates beyond that for those who earn over $500,000. Such a change would signal that we are all in this together and we all need to dig a little deeper to get our country back on track. Moreover, if this amount was added to the government’s revenues it would make it possible for the government to function more effectively and thereby restore the public’s confidence.

If you worth $50 million I doubt you would have a $50,000 house :wink:

1 Like

Please fix this typo in the article, it’s horrific

“The ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax’ would apply to . . . ‘all household assets… and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more’”

That should be $50,000,000 or more!