Posted on 09/23/2019 8:38:46 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax may create a new incentive for rich couples to divorce to avoid the tax, according to Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw.
Warren’s plan would impose a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion.
If a wealthy couple is worth $100 million, they would pay a 2% tax on any wealth over $50 million, which in their case would amount to $1 million a year.
If they divorce and split their fortune in half, they would each be worth $50 million and neither would owe any wealth tax.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax may create a new incentive for rich couples to divorce to avoid the tax.
In a recent analysis of the Democratic presidential candidate’s signature tax, Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw said that because of the nature and structure of the tax, ultra-wealthy couples could split their fortunes in half through divorce and avoid paying any tax. He said that for certain couples, divorcing could save them $1 million a year.
“The Warren proposal entails a $1 million per year marriage penalty,” said Mankiw, who was the head of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
The strategy is fairly simple. Warren’s plan would impose a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion. If a wealthy couple is worth $100 million, they would pay a 2% tax on any wealth over $50 million, which in their case would amount to $1 million a year. But if they divorce and split their fortune in half, they would each be worth $50 million and neither would owe any wealth tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
What a loon!
The fake Pocahontas that Democrats love is now trying to destroy families, and discourage people from being married.
Said it before, but the introduction of a wealth tax will mirror the implementation of the income tax. The propaganda on the income tax was that it would only apply to the most wealthy, and see what it has become. A wealth tax will inveitibly end up the same.
Once started, the Rats and RINOs will not be able to stop themselves from spending and taxing. Give it 10 years and it will be a wealth tax applied to everyone with more than 50k in total net worth. And, just think about the costs associated with determining the total net worth of each filer.
A tax on wealth would be unconstitutional as it is a seizure without compensation.
Unfortunately, we are far past constitutional...
I’d rather impose a 2% tax on the body weight of these DNC types: could remove the brain, they’d never miss it.
In case you never noticed, US tax policy is to tax INCOME not WEALTH.
Even 19th century “progressives” were opposed to governance by constitutional means, FDR kicked the Constitution to the curb, LBJ murdered his way through politics ... the current makes them look honorable and decent.
Wealthy people will simply move all their assets out of the country.
Take all the Money the Rich have and use it to pay off the National Debt.
What’s that, all that Money would hardly make a dent in the National Debt?
Say it ain’t so.
This is all I teach my kids for now the Democrats want to take all of your money and the Republicans want to give it back to you
I'm sure there's a penumbra somewhere that permits it.
NOTICE! This is not a tax on income! It’s a tax on accumulated money. This is important.
Europe has this. They take a percentage of what you have in the bank. The average joe idiot is going to think it’s just a high tax rate. No. It’s confiscation of money in the bank.
The only justification would be a Kelo taking for "public good" instead of the constitutional "public use" in the 5th amendment, which is how municipalities took private property to give to other private entities that would generate more local taxes for the property.
However, that was an eminent domain case, and it would be a stretch for the government to claim eminent domain over one's bank account as a property taking.
-PJ
You are correct. It is tax-the-rich sound bite for the poor inner city vote that would eventually lead to much higher taxes on the middle class.
There are about 84,000 families in the US worth more than $50 million. If you taxed them all another 1 to 2, or 3 million dollars it hardly put a small dent in the national debt.
She should stick to tribal dancing and avoid any economic discussions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7FyyVwYEds
This is all I teach my kids for now the Democrats want to take all of your money and the Republicans want to give it back to you
If she is the nominee this cannot be let go. Press this policy because it’s quite immoral. I heard her say she wants to follow the wealth anywhere in the world... Seriously, a gang or IRS employees who are following rich people and their assets anywhere in the world so they can get their 3% yearly cut? The wealth theoretically shrinks each year because you took a chunk last year ( from the same pie). This is wrong on so many levels. I really hope that’s not where the country is
Don’t forget the Fed is printing money into oblivion.
Thus, there is an average 2% depreciation a year. So add her new tax starting at 2%, then you really need 5% annual increase to move up 1%.
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.