breh when have u ever heard her state these are two separate taxes. She flat out refuses to say 6%. She’ll start with 2% and then she’ll say a few pennies more when accounting for Medicare for all
[
2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
breh when have u ever heard her state these are two separate taxes. She flat out refuses to say 6%. She’ll start with 2% and then she’ll say a few pennies more when accounting for Medicare for all
[
6% ON $1B+ IS FOR M4A, DAMN MAN THIS REALLY AIN'T THAT HARD TO FOLLOW
Wealth Tax 1: 2% for $50M+, 3% for $1B+ to fund universal childcare, tuition-free college, student debt cancellation, expand HBCU funding.
Wealth Tax 2: add 3% (so 6% total) for $1B+ to fund M4A.
This shyt ain't confusing man
exactly 6% total. But she refuses to just say 6% total.
Y’all think she’s going to get the largest tax increase for the past 50 years TWICE!
do u really believe that?
Even fact check called her out on her bullshyt. 
FactChecking the November Democratic Debate
Warren’s ‘2 Cents’
Warren continued to bill her wealth tax as a plan that would require the wealthiest top one-tenth of 1% of Americans to “pitch in 2 cents.” It’s true that under her plan those worth between $50 million and $1 billion would pay an annual 2% wealth tax. But the rate on assets over $1 billion would be triple that.
Warren: You know, I have proposed a 2 cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than 50 billion dollars in assets. Your first $50 billion is free and clear. But your 50 billionth and first dollar, you’ve got to pitch in 2 cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you’ve got to pitch in a few pennies more. Here’s the thing, doing a wealth tax is not about punishing anyone. It’s about saying you built something great in this country, good for you. But you did it using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You did it getting your goods on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You did it protected by police and firefighters all of us helped pay the salaries for. So when you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make it top one-tenth of 1% big, pitch in 2 cents so everybody gets a chance to make it.
Under Warren’s original wealth tax plan, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million (not $50 billion, as she mistakenly said in the debate), (mistakenly huh
) and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.
As we wrote in our story “Facts on Warren’s Wealth Tax Plan,” University of California, Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez estimated Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years. As she has in past debates, Warren rattled off a list of education priorities, such as universal pre-K and free public college tuition, that the tax could pay for. (As we have written, it is a matter of debate among economists and tax experts as to whether her plan would raise as much revenue as she expects.)
But since then, Warren unveiled her plan to pay for Medicare for All, which included upping the wealth tax on assets over $1 billion to 6%. While Forbes estimates there are less than 1,000 billionaires in the U.S., Warren estimated the additional 3% annual wealth tax — which she dismissed as “a few pennies more” — would raise an additional $1 trillion over 10 years.
Warren said on Nov. 1 that even with the annual tax, the net worth of the super-wealthy would continue to grow, because they “will still likely pay less than what they would earn just from putting their assets into an index fund and doing nothing.” But some tax experts we spoke to doubt that’s true.
Kyle Pomerleau, formerly chief economist at the Tax Foundation and now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told us it was unrealistic to assume billionaires could put all their wealth into an index fund. “Housing, for example, is a source of wealth [that] isn’t simply going to be liquidated and put into the market as a means to ‘outperform’ the wealth tax,” Pomerleau said.
An analysis by Zucman and Saez found that if an annual 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion had been enacted in 1982, the wealth of some of the richest Americans would be dramatically reduced. (See Table 4 for a breakdown of the projected effects on some of the wealthiest Americans.)
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, noted that Warren is taxing both wealth and the investment returns to that wealth, and by his calculation, “Someone like Bill Gates would be paying wealth and capital gains taxes equal to a marginal effective income tax rate of more than 100 percent.”
Whatever one may think about that, Warren’s “2 cents” talking point — which she even used in a recent ad featuring several billionaires — is only true for those with a net worth between $50 million and $1 billion; for those with a net worth over $1 billion, it’s triple that.
Say 6% warren be truthful
FactChecking the November Democratic DebateWarren’s ‘2 Cents’
Warren continued to bill her wealth tax as a plan that would require the wealthiest top one-tenth of 1% of Americans to “pitch in 2 cents.” It’s true that under her plan those worth between $50 million and $1 billion would pay an annual 2% wealth tax. But the rate on assets over $1 billion would be triple that.
Warren: You know, I have proposed a 2 cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than 50 billion dollars in assets. Your first $50 billion is free and clear. But your 50 billionth and first dollar, you’ve got to pitch in 2 cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you’ve got to pitch in a few pennies more. Here’s the thing, doing a wealth tax is not about punishing anyone. It’s about saying you built something great in this country, good for you. But you did it using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You did it getting your goods on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You did it protected by police and firefighters all of us helped pay the salaries for. So when you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make it top one-tenth of 1% big, pitch in 2 cents so everybody gets a chance to make it.
Under Warren’s original wealth tax plan, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million (not $50 billion, as she mistakenly said in the debate), (mistakenly huh
) and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.As we wrote in our story “Facts on Warren’s Wealth Tax Plan,” University of California, Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez estimated Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years. As she has in past debates, Warren rattled off a list of education priorities, such as universal pre-K and free public college tuition, that the tax could pay for. (As we have written, it is a matter of debate among economists and tax experts as to whether her plan would raise as much revenue as she expects.)
But since then, Warren unveiled her plan to pay for Medicare for All, which included upping the wealth tax on assets over $1 billion to 6%. While Forbes estimates there are less than 1,000 billionaires in the U.S., Warren estimated the additional 3% annual wealth tax — which she dismissed as “a few pennies more” — would raise an additional $1 trillion over 10 years.
Warren said on Nov. 1 that even with the annual tax, the net worth of the super-wealthy would continue to grow, because they “will still likely pay less than what they would earn just from putting their assets into an index fund and doing nothing.” But some tax experts we spoke to doubt that’s true.
Kyle Pomerleau, formerly chief economist at the Tax Foundation and now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told us it was unrealistic to assume billionaires could put all their wealth into an index fund. “Housing, for example, is a source of wealth [that] isn’t simply going to be liquidated and put into the market as a means to ‘outperform’ the wealth tax,” Pomerleau said.
An analysis by Zucman and Saez found that if an annual 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion had been enacted in 1982, the wealth of some of the richest Americans would be dramatically reduced. (See Table 4 for a breakdown of the projected effects on some of the wealthiest Americans.)
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, noted that Warren is taxing both wealth and the investment returns to that wealth, and by his calculation, “Someone like Bill Gates would be paying wealth and capital gains taxes equal to a marginal effective income tax rate of more than 100 percent.”
Whatever one may think about that, Warren’s “2 cents” talking point — which she even used in a recent ad featuring several billionaires — is only true for those with a net worth between $50 million and $1 billion; for those with a net worth over $1 billion, it’s triple that.
Say 6% warren be truthful
Last edited:
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
The 6% M4A wealth tax on $1B+ is like a few of weeks old, dude. She just put it out in her M4A financing plan. For the vast majority of the primary, the only wealth tax she's had has been the 2% wealth tax. So her campaign has built out a whole PR messaging strategy for months around the first 2% wealth tax. Whenever asked about the $1B+ M4A wealth tax, she has never refused to say it will be 6% as per her plan.
And it literally is a few pennies more. Stop and think about what you're saying. You're calling her an "outright liar" for saying the increase from 3 pennies on the dollar to 6 pennies on the dollar for every dollar over ONE fukkING BILLION is "a few pennies more". Take a breather.
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
someone please help this man 
PoorAndDangerous
Superstar
99% of polls are based off people who only have landlines.. AKA mostly old fukks who like biden.Sanders still isn't polling well enough to defeat Biden
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
another blowout in the cornhusker state incoming
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
I have to also believe the left eating its own again with Warren being refused air support after she came out with her M4A plan played right into the insurance industry's hands as well. Imagine being an on-the-fence M4A squish and seeing how Liz was treated by certain leftist voices and media after she released her M4A plan. It was deranged and toxic. There is no way I'd be willing to move in that direction, because the message was that there is no coalition-building or outreach, only submitting to Bernie. Problem is, Bernie seems to be running at max capacity and is capping out at 15-20% in the Democratic primary, much less the general. So why would someone on the fence about M4A feel fear of Bernie? It would be far more rational to go with the Pete/Biden path of tepid, moderate action that doesn't upset apple cart. This is why Jayapal has been begging the left to stop the ridiculous Warren bashing, and to unite and support Bernie and Liz. M4A is not in any position to be making the type of absurd accusations that Warren has been facing. This shyt has been tragic to watch and shows the left isn't serious about governing yet, word to Matt Stoller.
Purity politics at play
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Bruh Obama is already sending subs and IA is 3 months away.he's not going to endorse anybody until the primary is over, just like in 2016. He's said so himself.
This Bernie persecution complex has got to stop
Obama warns Democrats against going too far left: 'We have to be rooted in reality'
We’ll see how strongly he endorses if one of them wins but it’s clear he’s not really fukking with Warren or Bernie.
Reportedly he doesn’t see Bernie as a serious candidate, still.