Posted on 03/02/2021 1:15:16 PM PST by JV3MRC
Leftist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) avoided answering tough questions from CNBC that underscored the nonsense behind her wealth tax proposal.
CNBC Squawk Box co-anchor Joe Kernen played devil’s advocate in an attempt to expose the lack of logic behind Warren’s tax proposal. Kernen said to Warren during the March 2 edition of Squawk Box: “If you’re going to do two percent [tax] on 50 million [dollars], and then when you get up to a billion [dollars] and you’re going to three percent [tax], if we’ve made, if we’ve crossed the rubicon … why not make it truly progressive and do 10 percent [tax] at a billion [dollars], do 20 percent at 10 billion [dollars]?”
Kernen continued his unique line of questioning: “Why not do it that way once you get started and raise some real money? What would be the problem? Why would [Amazon founder and CEO Jeff] Bezos do three percent when some poor schmo at only 50 million [dollars] does two percent?”
Clearly caught off guard, Warren avoided the question and pivoted to her claim that her plan would raise $3.75 trillion in revenue over the next ten years: “So, look, um, you know, I’m just a girl from Oklahoma. I think $3 trillion actually sounds like a lot of money. And raising $3 trillion that we can reinvest in our economy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
yeah but they don’t ‘reinvest in the economy’
that phrase means different things to different people
vague on purpose
I guess that's the best you can do when you have no idea what you are talking about the proposal isn't about substantive policy, but merely about narrative.
And that "reinvestment" comment makes as much sense as digging a ditch and then filling it back in.
This evil c*nt needs to lead by example, and give up 3% of her total net worth each year by writing a check to FedGov. Being a hypocritical Democrat (but I repeat myself), she won’t, of course.
She’s just a girl from Oklahoma? That’s her answer?
The implication being what exactly? That she doesn’t grasp nuances of concepts such as this tax proposal, because, either due to Oklahomans not grasping it, or females not grasping it? Which is it?
“Reinvest” translated to Liberal-Speak means, “Spend on stuff that we like, and from which we can skim money.”
The simple fact is that if there is a wealth tax, the wealthy will begin to leave faster than they already are...which is to say, their MONEY will leave. They will stay, because capital if FAR more mobile. Oh, and to the extent that these lying bastards actually do “reinvest” the money in the economy, the loss of wealth from the rich moving money out of the country will dwarf that and lead to LESS investment in the economy.
The simple lesson is that if you tax something, you get less of it; this particular moron has chosen to try to tax wealth, so we’ll get less wealth as a result.
‘reinvest in the economy’
There will be shortages of gin and cigarettes over the next 10 years.
It’s all spending money. Handouts.
FYI:
Taxes Raised during the year have absolutely Nothing to do with Spending Created by Congress. They are two separate functions and are independent of each other.
She is just an Okie from Muscogee, and there is just so much she doesn’t know!
What an enlightened answer!
Best part: that $50 mil number should shield the vast majority of Congress.
What a coinkydink.
Just a smalltown girl professor from Haaavaad!
I’m sure they’ll be a loophole for “Public Servants”. This is a money grab pure and simple. You tax something in order to reduce what your taxing. She doesn’t want people to have wealth. It’s that simple.
I’m all for it.
If democrats are going to be in control of the government anyway, then I say soak all those rich (most of them lefty) bastages.
If they take all of the remaining jobs and businesses overseas, good.
Either the hole friggin economy tanks, or we soak a bunch of rich people to pay for all these “stimulus” welfare debts we have to pay.
We Okies don’t claim her.
Government reinvestment in our economy?! What an effing joke. As is the faux squaw from Oklahoma.
Hey squaw Gray Beaver, tell me when a tax increase actually “raised” what it was predicted to “raise”.
Again, I’d like to ask, how will the government know how much wealth someone has? Will they send a tax man round to look at and record everything you have? Of course there will have to be penalties for not showing the tax man everything and of course tax men will have to examine the possessions of everyone even remotely close to the 50 million mark
This won’t be considered a massive invasion of privacy, of course, but rather a necessary step to make sure everyone pays “his fair share”.
“I’m just a girl from Oklahoma. I think $3 trillion actually sounds like a lot of money”
I doubt $3 trillion would even pay a year’s worth of interest on the national debt.
The current national debt is $28 trillion. It's unlikely that federal government pays over 10% interest on its debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.