Posted on 03/04/2021 9:36:09 AM PST by JV3MRC
CNBC has been holding the feet of Democratic members of Congress to the fire over the disastrous implications of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) insidious wealth tax.
CNBC co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed “Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021” co-sponsor Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) on the disastrous economic impact of an arbitrary two percent tax on every dollar of people's wealth exceeding $50 million. Sorkin pointed out on the March 4 edition of Squawk Box why the “two percent” figure would be problematic: “Two percent on an annual basis sounds tiny, but over the period of 20 years — or rather 10 years, even — we’re talking about 20 percent of wealth. In some cases, 30 percent of wealth.” Sorkin continued: “[T]here is a question about whether that unto itself is confiscatory.”
Ignoring the context, Jayapal reiterated the same talking point that Sorkin had just shot down as misleading: “You know, I just don’t see how you could say that two cents on every dollar over $50 million is confiscatory.” Stunning, considering Sorkin just explained in his question why the wealth tax could be considered confiscatory when you put the tax into a broader context.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The democrats want to bring about communism and this is what’s on the table here. Don’t be distracted by details in this wealth tax the point is to confiscate wealth.
The “wealth tax” would grow to effect more and more people. The Bolsheviks need an endless supply of other people’s money to fund their boondoggles.
Andrew Ross Sorkin is a liberal dweeb, but at least he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
In his interview with Bill Gates, Sorkin let Gates get by with mucho pontification and obfuscation without a challenge. For instance, Bill gates lives in a huge mansion, yet he is championing green climate efforts. Gates thinks he can buy carbon offsets and it will exclude the greenhouse gasses he is emitting. I could maybe believe in climate change efforts if the celebrities, plutocrats, Bill Gates, Algores of the world would lead by example.
Sorkin is very pro democrat, so he is directly responsible for the Warren plutocrat wealth confiscation effort.
For me, this isn't about "fairness" or even raising revenue. It's about survival. If billionaires are going to use their money to take away my political voice, I will use my political voice to take away their money. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg can get their tax protection from the Democrats they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put into office. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican Tax Protection Store is closed. For good. I'd also like to slap an 80% surtax on any profits made by trade with China. Because: **** You. War.
Pure evil like the death tax. Why are these clowns the arbiters of what is fair? And how much wealth should anyone be able to accumulate, as long as they pay their taxes they’re legally obligated to? You don’t think the mega-rich will just leave and go live in the lap of luxury elsewhere? It happened in France, it’ll happen here.
Just like the Alternative Minimum Tax that was billed as impacting just a handful of Americans but was never indexed for inflation. I doubt that the Congressdweebs who wrote that bill didn't understand how inflation worked. That was precisely what they were counting on, AMT casting a wider and wider net every year.
Ditto that. I read once that second generation Cubans know about the evils of communism from their parents, but many third generation, having gone through our public schools, believe the democrat socialists.
Doesn’t matter if it’s 2%, 1%, or 0.001%. As long as they get it passed, they can easily raise it in the future.
We don't teach history in the schools like we used to, so that students can understand the failings and limitations of communism,
nor the success of capitalism and incentive and increased productivity.
There is a reason why the first Socialist colonies in America failed miserably, because they lacked incentive and self-determination and independent action.
Nor do we teach logic in the high school, unless you are on the debate team, or even critical thinking, unless its about racial issues.
Also, we don't even teach rudimentary economics, nor 'home economics' anymore; everybody would rather pay Amazon to deliver crap to the door.
We end up relying on the NEA (National Educators Association) most of whom are socialists who already have promoted books by Sol Alynski to the teachers unions.
Income taxes started out as a tax on the “Wealthy”. And here we are....
I have reviewed the constitutionality of this wealth tax and I believe the following is correct. While it would be constitutional it would be defined as a direct tax. The constitution requires that a direct tax be allocated to each state proportionally to their population. This requirement is almost impossible to comply with. When the income tax was first proposed no one could figure out how to make it work. The 16th amendment was passed to exclude the income tax as being defined as a direct tax. So following the same logic an amendment would be required for a wealth tax. Of course we never know what John Roberts and friends will make up.
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.