First, we had Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez arguing for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on any income over $10 million (although her policy guy thought maybe he could talk her up to 90 percent — seems he deleted that tweet, though … weird).
Now Sen. Elizabeth Warren is trying to get in on the game with her (unconstitutional) “wealth tax” on those with more than $50 million.
Twitchy favorite Chad Felix Greene put together a thoughtful mini-thread on these tax proposals, and it’s worth a look:
I get the progressive idea behind the argument of a 70% tax on the wealthy.
'$50 million?
You might pay $35 million in taxes but you'll keep $15 million.You can live on $15 million. Don't be greedy.'
But its short-sighted and ignores human nature.
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
How would we sustain the $50 mil earnings when the value, to you, is $15 mil? That is psychologically toxic.
But its also unreasonable. If everyone only keeps 30% of their earnings, the percieved value of money drops across the board.
The gov cannot depend on that 70% forever.
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
The conservative/libertarian will dispute the government asserting ownership of their earnings at all and will question why the gov needs that much in taxes.
But the progressive should recognize people will not work for 30% of their income long term. The foundation crumbles.
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
I think the question should move away from morality and civic duty.
The Left views taxation as a public good and the Right sees it anywhere from a bitter pill to theft.
But can we talk about purpose? Why do you want this money and how will it be used? Why does it cost so much?
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
Recommended
Warren says her plan would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years … but $5.7 for border security is totally unreasonable. So where does all the money go? Progressives always say roads and public schools — but both of those are a mess and always need more money. Always.
Progressives speak in broad, optimistic terms but rarely in specifics. Ask them for details. Ask them for alternatives to the same goal. Challenge them to view taxes as *temporary* funding rather than longterm income.
High taxes simply cannot be sustained. We need alternatives.
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
Also, ask them what they *don't* want to fund and be prepared to justify it if you disagree.
I argue there is a large segment of government funding *both* sides would agree is wasteful.
We fight over the big stuff. Let's start with what we both can agree to toss out.
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 24, 2019
It’s a funny time to ask that question, seeing as we’re now finding out how many government employees are “non-essential.”
No person ought to be forced to pay more to the government than they keep for themselves.
If the house ALWAYS wins, people stop playing.
Progs ought to accept idea of an absolute top rate of 49%.
— Mr. Crow (@Crowesq) January 24, 2019
Well put! Why work at all if you don't get to keep any of the fruits of your labors? While watching those who dont work live off of what you've earned.
— TheBIArchitect (@BIArchitectess) January 24, 2019
And it’s never worked in the history of the world
— Paulsy ? (@Paulsy01) January 24, 2019
What did Rush Limbaugh always ask … which nation ever taxed itself into prosperity?
This idea ignores the tax rate already being paid on the first $10 million…
— #CovingtonStrong (@sabes84) January 24, 2019
It also ignores that it will only raise 1% of the revenue they want to splurge … and all such schemes wind up with punitive taxes on the middle class. Don’t believe me? What income levels did the income tax start out at? Politicians have infinite appetite to spend your money.
— Thistle-at-Law. (@WallyStummy) January 24, 2019
It also hurts the economy. There's a risk/reward analysis that goes into every business decision… growing your business requires investment that entails risk, and if the return on that investment is diminished by higher taxes it is less likely to be taken.
— Stephen (@pretapartager) January 24, 2019
and the fact that most of that money could be reinvested. Meaning growth slows down to a snails pace.
— Doubting Tommy (@tommy_doubting) January 24, 2019
I just have a problem with allowing government to manage our money when the private sector is so much better at it.
— charltonlc (@LauraLynn1960) January 24, 2019
How’s that Social Security “lockbox” coming along?
A 70% marginal tax rate isn't a serious policy proposal and we should stop treating it like one. It's "Build the Wall!" for DemSocs. Aside from the multitude of evidence that more money is collected when the top rate is lower, it also comes nowhere near to paying for the …
— Jake Sunlin (@westeroscowboy) January 24, 2019
"Green New Deal" or Medicare-for-All or any other of their cherished proposals. The goal should be to stop engaging them on 70% and get the DemSocs to stop lying and admit they will need to massively tax the middle class to fund their goals.
— Jake Sunlin (@westeroscowboy) January 24, 2019
the funny/ironic thing is, leftist/socialist/communists like @AOC think millionaires/billionaires can live on $15m a year. but the goverment takes the other $50m and spends 6 times as much
one rule for thee and not for me
— Scottie (@BuffaloBlueBear) January 24, 2019
Let’s face it: For both parties, and both ideologies, at every level, government is essentially a jobs program. Your analysis and reasoning is perfectly sound, but it forever falls on deaf ears because of the triangle trade of politics.
— Robert Pothier (@rbpothier) January 24, 2019
Rand Paul had brought up a 700K$ grant for watching pigeons have sex on cocaine. I'd be for cutting that.
— J M (@GameEnders_) January 24, 2019
That is not true. It was actually an $875,000 grant to study the sexual habits of quail high on cocaine.
Worried about furloughed workers not having food? Maybe cut the quail study and spread that around.
Related:
Elizabeth Warren's new plan to fight wealth inequality is 'FLAT-OUT un-American' (and unconstitutional) https://t.co/KXHJOJxamb
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 24, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member