Elizabeth Warren billionaire tax calculator broken?

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,370
3,077
146

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.


Okay, so the proposal is 2% on wealth between 50 million and 1 billion. When you run the calculator on 1 billion in wealth it checks out at 19 million (obviously rounding a little.)

Then, it’s supposed to be 3% past 1 billion. Therefore, on another billion of wealth it should be 30 million additional. However, it calculates 79 million, which would be expected if they‘re collecting 2% on the first billion and 6% on the second billion.

If you run it on 100 billion just for a round number you’d expect 5.959 billion and you get... exactly that.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
Broken in more ways than one. It's basically a de-facto tax on stocks. The rich will just run away from paper assets into physical assets where there's a smaller market and they can more easily manipulate valuations.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136




Okay, so the proposal is 2% on wealth between 50 million and 1 billion. When you run the calculator on 1 billion in wealth it checks out at 19 million (obviously rounding a little.)

Then, it’s supposed to be 3% past 1 billion. Therefore, on another billion of wealth it should be 30 million additional. However, it calculates 79 million, which would be expected if they‘re collecting 2% on the first billion and 6% on the second billion.

If you run it on 100 billion just for a round number you’d expect 5.959 billion and you get... exactly that.

It’s like income taxes and I don’t know her specific points but it works
1% tax more than 50 million fewer than 1B
2% more that 1B less that 2B
3% more than 2B

So the dollar past 2B is a 6% tax not all 2B.

**thats the way it sounded when she explained**
Personally I don’t think a “wealth” tax is a bad idea. For whatever reasons the extremely rich have a greater % of all monies. There needs to be some sort of incentive for them to spend it.

Now personal opinion. Going past 10s of millions is mostly a sickness, I can excuse the guy who has a business and employees but on the other hand having 100 million liquid as personal money means you don’t need a big salary.
We have all heard super wealthy guys say at some point it’s not about having the money it’s about earning more money that someone else, it is a competition.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Warren is just overall a complete moron that caters to complete morons. Even economists that are on her side are basically saying "Yeaaaaah, sorry Warren you're an idiot. Your tax plan wont work"

Which isn't surprising - she is either an incompetent moron herself, or she is bullshitting to her voters and hoping they don't notice.



Overall a wealth tax sounds decent on paper - the concept is simple: If you spend more of your money it won't be taxed. Billionaires spending money or investing it is a good thing.... But they simply aren't going to do it. As the economist said, she doesn't account for people that will circumvent it... of which there will be plenty.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Warren is just overall a complete moron that caters to complete morons. Even economists that are on her side are basically saying "Yeaaaaah, sorry Warren you're an idiot. Your tax plan wont work"

Which isn't surprising - she is either an incompetent moron herself, or she is bullshitting to her voters and hoping they don't notice.



Overall a wealth tax sounds decent on paper - the concept is simple: If you spend more of your money it won't be taxed. Billionaires spending money or investing it is a good thing.... But they simply aren't going to do it. As the economist said, she doesn't account for people that will circumvent it... of which there will be plenty.

We don’t agree, tax encourages spending which is a good thing.
As far as circumventing it as of now I don’t know how you’d do that, other than buying a bunch of properties but then you’d still pay property tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Warren is just overall a complete moron that caters to complete morons. Even economists that are on her side are basically saying "Yeaaaaah, sorry Warren you're an idiot. Your tax plan wont work"

Which isn't surprising - she is either an incompetent moron herself, or she is bullshitting to her voters and hoping they don't notice.



Overall a wealth tax sounds decent on paper - the concept is simple: If you spend more of your money it won't be taxed. Billionaires spending money or investing it is a good thing.... But they simply aren't going to do it. As the economist said, she doesn't account for people that will circumvent it... of which there will be plenty.

Of course some people will circumvent it, but plenty won’t and it’s a positively good thing regardless.

You realize Warren is far smarter and more capable than either one of us, right? She’s downright brilliant. She generally caters to people who are policy oriented and who have really thought about things. As I think I mentioned before if you want cold hard facts and hard policy work Warren should be your #1 choice.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,452
9,837
136
Warren is just overall a complete moron that caters to complete morons. Even economists that are on her side are basically saying "Yeaaaaah, sorry Warren you're an idiot. Your tax plan wont work"

Which isn't surprising - she is either an incompetent moron herself, or she is bullshitting to her voters and hoping they don't notice.



Overall a wealth tax sounds decent on paper - the concept is simple: If you spend more of your money it won't be taxed. Billionaires spending money or investing it is a good thing.... But they simply aren't going to do it. As the economist said, she doesn't account for people that will circumvent it... of which there will be plenty.
I think Warren is smart. But I agree I don't really like the idea of a direct wealth tax. Especially at 6%, the compounding effect would be massive.

I'd much rather fix income and investment taxes, and plug loopholes in the estate and property taxes and end corporate welfare.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't tax the middle class any more no matter what. If you want to provide free healthcare and university it reseaonable that those most benefiting pay for some it (hopefully via very progressive taxes).
 

andy2000

Member
Jul 5, 2011
74
20
81
It will never happen, but why not? It sounds no worse than property tax.

Most of my net worth is my house, and I'm already taxed at 2% of its value every year. It's not worth even close to $50 million, and I'm even taxed on the portion the bank owns!
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,493
9,824
136
I think Warren is smart. But I agree I don't really like the idea of a direct wealth tax. Especially at 6%, the compounding effect would be massive.

I'd much rather fix income and investment taxes, and plug loopholes in the estate and property taxes and end corporate welfare.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't tax the middle class any more no matter what. If you want to provide free healthcare and university it reseaonable that those most benefiting pay for some it (hopefully via very progressive taxes).

of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, but median income is like 50-60k. Yes you can take some for taxes, but those people need that money to provide basic needs.
Considering the wealthy have benefited the most from the past several decades of economic growth, it is only fitting they pay their share as well. As Warren Buffet said, he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. In what just world is that appropriate?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,452
9,837
136
of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, but median income is like 50-60k. Yes you can take some for taxes, but those people need that money to provide basic needs.
Considering the wealthy have benefited the most from the past several decades of economic growth, it is only fitting they pay their share as well. As Warren Buffet said, he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. In what just world is that appropriate?
Like I said, I'm for a very progressive tax scheme, which may lead to no new taxes for those at 50k, but those pulling 150k shouldn't be completely of the hook. Of course the executives and owner class should be paying much more.

I think Warren has said no new taxes for people making less than 2M/yr and I disagree with that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I think Warren is smart. But I agree I don't really like the idea of a direct wealth tax. Especially at 6%, the compounding effect would be massive.

I'd much rather fix income and investment taxes, and plug loopholes in the estate and property taxes and end corporate welfare.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't tax the middle class any more no matter what. If you want to provide free healthcare and university it reseaonable that those most benefiting pay for some it (hopefully via very progressive taxes).

I definitely agree with vastly higher estate taxes, probably north of 75%. I see no reason why people like Trump should be able to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle they haven’t earned.

Want a real meritocracy? No more inherited wealth.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Warren is just overall a complete moron that caters to complete morons. Even economists that are on her side are basically saying "Yeaaaaah, sorry Warren you're an idiot. Your tax plan wont work"

Which isn't surprising - she is either an incompetent moron herself, or she is bullshitting to her voters and hoping they don't notice.



Overall a wealth tax sounds decent on paper - the concept is simple: If you spend more of your money it won't be taxed. Billionaires spending money or investing it is a good thing.... But they simply aren't going to do it. As the economist said, she doesn't account for people that will circumvent it... of which there will be plenty.

I mean, if you'd just respond to these topics on their merit, without making claims about an individual that everyone here knows is clearly, demonstrably, incalculably smarter than you or I, your posts wouldn't be so easily dismissed as lunatic ravings. Just...stop making claims about someone's economic intelligence when you have summarily displayed vast ignorance on the matter. Whatever you are paid to do for whatever it is you do is absolutely no measure of how smart you are. You clearly think you are smart, but the things coming out of your fingers on these pages belies what you believe about yourself.

Discard the ad hominem qualifiers to your statements, expand your vocabulary and knowledge base on this (and other subjects with which you choose to participate), and it would go a long way towards better discussion in these pages (that goes for everyone).

I challenge you to completely remove these expressions from all of your posts going forward, (and replace them with substance for once):
"__half a brain!"
"__a complete moron! [for never-disclosed reasons]"
"__ if make xxx money, therefore smarter than you!"

It's just...utter garbage. :D
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
I think Warren is smart. But I agree I don't really like the idea of a direct wealth tax. Especially at 6%, the compounding effect would be massive.

I'd much rather fix income and investment taxes, and plug loopholes in the estate and property taxes and end corporate welfare.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't tax the middle class any more no matter what. If you want to provide free healthcare and university it reseaonable that those most benefiting pay for some it (hopefully via very progressive taxes).
I don't think people realize how much a billion dollars really is. These people have mind boggling amounts of wealth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,493
9,824
136
Like I said, I'm for a very progressive tax scheme, which may lead to no new taxes for those at 50k, but those pulling 150k shouldn't be completely of the hook. Of course the executives and owner class should be paying much more.

I think Warren has said no new taxes for people making less than 2M/yr and I disagree with that.


agreed. Hell I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if it meant UHC. Right now I think my rate is 20 or 25%. Another 5%, even 10%, would suck, but its not like I'd suddenly be living paycheck to paycheck
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I think Warren is smart. But I agree I don't really like the idea of a direct wealth tax. Especially at 6%, the compounding effect would be massive.

I'd much rather fix income and investment taxes, and plug loopholes in the estate and property taxes and end corporate welfare.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't tax the middle class any more no matter what. If you want to provide free healthcare and university it reseaonable that those most benefiting pay for some it (hopefully via very progressive taxes).

It's funny, they want to idolize Nordic and European countries.... saying how GREAAAAAAT their healthcare plan is... Yet for some reason never mentioning their tax model that...

1) Has a highly regressive Value Added Tax system. E.g. in the UK it's 20%. Imagine a 20% sales tax on everything you buy.
2) Has an overall high income tax whereby their equivalency of a "middle class" is paying between 30-50%.

Do those sound like what we currently have? Absolutely not. The middle and lower classes pay practically nothing in Income taxes - and we have no regressive VAT at the federal level either.

But for some reason, Warren doesn't want to mention these facts while idolizing other countries healthcare systems. Gee, wonder why? The good ol' "We can just take it from the rich!" is really getting old - and it is seriously something that is only believed from someone that is seriously beyond stupid.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
It's funny, they want to idolize Nordic and European countries.... saying how GREAAAAAAT their healthcare plan is... Yet for some reason never mentioning their tax model that...

1) Has a highly regressive Value Added Tax system. E.g. in the UK it's 20%. Imagine a 20% sales tax on everything you buy.
2) Has an overall high income tax whereby their equivalency of a "middle class" is paying between 30-50%.

Do those sound like what we currently have? Absolutely not. The middle and lower classes pay practically nothing in Income taxes - and we have no regressive VAT at the federal level either.

But for some reason, Warren doesn't want to mention these facts while idolizing other countries healthcare systems. Gee, wonder why? The good ol' "We can just take it from the rich!" is really getting old - and it is seriously something that is only believed from someone that is seriously beyond stupid.

I am more than okay paying around 35% vs current 28% if that means it comes with healthcare and a proper Government sponsored retirement.
Funny how guys who sound like you act like having healthcare, good time off, nearly free education and government backed retirement plans are totally impossible to achieve.

 
Mar 11, 2004
23,031
5,495
146
agreed. Hell I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if it meant UHC. Right now I think my rate is 20 or 25%. Another 5%, even 10%, would suck, but its not like I'd suddenly be living paycheck to paycheck

That's the thing though, you first have to show to people that taxing the wealthiest actually does work (meaning it doesn't magically make them poor or tank the economy, while providing solid tax revenue). Then I think you can possibly start looking at expanding on that.

I think some of you don't realize how gaslit people are on this bullshit American Dream that they've been sold. I've known lots of poor people who consider taxing the rich horrible because they genuinely think its possible for them to attain. They do this while struggling to afford to live day to day. But then they'll rant about corporations and CEOs, but somehow never make the connection.

I think an easier way to explain things is to get people to think about it in a way they can better comprehend. $1000 a day of income would be $365k. Triple that and you'd be a millionaire (just in income, meaning, that's from a single year). So a millionaire is making about $2800 a day. That's as much as a good amount of people are making a month, meaning just a single millionaire is making 30 times more than them. And Warren's plan is talking about targeting only to people making 50+ times that. Meaning, unless you're making 150 times what someone making $33k a year is, things you won't be paying this extra tax at all, and even then will only be paying an extra 1%.

And the revenue from this will enable us to move to things like UHC which will save people a lot of money on medical costs, which will save even middle class (although maybe as part of a transitional period you factor that into the progressive tax rates, so that people end up the same and the cost savings goes towards smoothing the transition), which effectively amplifies things for lower income people, who are disproportionately affected by health care costs (but transitioning where many of them had no or less coverage than UHC would offer, you'll have increased costs, but that should fall over time as better consistent medical care reduces the severity and costs of medical conditions).

Which, maybe you could meet halfway as well, where they could offer a voluntary extra tax rate. Incentivize it some (maybe offer some bonds or something so that you could get some later return for that), lock it to certain programs (health care, education, maybe even specific programs, so make it as part of transitional UHC, or program for subsidizing college education; so it can't be used to keep ballooning "defense" budget or something).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
It's funny, they want to idolize Nordic and European countries.... saying how GREAAAAAAT their healthcare plan is... Yet for some reason never mentioning their tax model that...

1) Has a highly regressive Value Added Tax system. E.g. in the UK it's 20%. Imagine a 20% sales tax on everything you buy.
2) Has an overall high income tax whereby their equivalency of a "middle class" is paying between 30-50%.

Do those sound like what we currently have? Absolutely not. The middle and lower classes pay practically nothing in Income taxes - and we have no regressive VAT at the federal level either.

But for some reason, Warren doesn't want to mention these facts while idolizing other countries healthcare systems. Gee, wonder why? The good ol' "We can just take it from the rich!" is really getting old - and it is seriously something that is only believed from someone that is seriously beyond stupid.

You probably should stay away from saying what stupid people believe because your posting history doesn’t do you any favors. In fact I’m trying to think of the last time you weren’t laughably wrong on any given topic.

Warren didn’t mention VAT or anything equivalent because her plan doesn’t require it.
You also didn’t mention sales tax in the US, nor property taxes, or state taxes, nor did you mention health care costs. Why didn’t you mention these? Were you trying to be dishonest with your implications? Or are you projecting when you constantly complain about others being stupid?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's funny, they want to idolize Nordic and European countries.... saying how GREAAAAAAT their healthcare plan is... Yet for some reason never mentioning their tax model that...

1) Has a highly regressive Value Added Tax system. E.g. in the UK it's 20%. Imagine a 20% sales tax on everything you buy.
2) Has an overall high income tax whereby their equivalency of a "middle class" is paying between 30-50%.

Do those sound like what we currently have? Absolutely not. The middle and lower classes pay practically nothing in Income taxes - and we have no regressive VAT at the federal level either.

But for some reason, Warren doesn't want to mention these facts while idolizing other countries healthcare systems. Gee, wonder why? The good ol' "We can just take it from the rich!" is really getting old - and it is seriously something that is only believed from someone that is seriously beyond stupid.

So what? The top 400 income earners ($330M/yr) in this country pay the same total tax rate as people at the 50th percentile ($65K/yr). The vast majority of us only dream of making 1/1000 of that $330M. That's a fucking crime against the People, brought to us by the GOP. So is our distribution of wealth, where 3 people have more of it than the bottom 50% combined.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
It's funny, they want to idolize Nordic and European countries.... saying how GREAAAAAAT their healthcare plan is... Yet for some reason never mentioning their tax model that...

1) Has a highly regressive Value Added Tax system. E.g. in the UK it's 20%. Imagine a 20% sales tax on everything you buy.
2) Has an overall high income tax whereby their equivalency of a "middle class" is paying between 30-50%.

Do those sound like what we currently have? Absolutely not. The middle and lower classes pay practically nothing in Income taxes - and we have no regressive VAT at the federal level either.

But for some reason, Warren doesn't want to mention these facts while idolizing other countries healthcare systems. Gee, wonder why? The good ol' "We can just take it from the rich!" is really getting old - and it is seriously something that is only believed from someone that is seriously beyond stupid.

Because the fact that their tax model is regressive is irrelevant as they engage in large scale wealth transfers from rich to poor in other ways and overall is highly progressive. Your wallet doesn’t care how or why a dollar gets in it, only that it’s there. Ironically, the US tax system isn’t really progressive either as when you take TOTAL tax burden and stop focusing on just federal income tax it’s basically flat.

She seems to understand all of this far better than you do, which is why she’s not ignorant enough to say things like what you just posted.

She’s smarter than you and better informed than you are. Instead of trying to insult her you should listen to her. She deals in the cold hard facts you claim you want, not a fantasy world like the one you currently live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and pmv

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,048
5,043
146
I pay around $100/paycheck for our healthcare plan. It comes with a $250 in-network deductible, so at a minimum (not even factoring in co-pays), I'm looking at almost $3k/year for healthcare.

That isn't bad at all considering it covers nearly everything except elective procedures and dental work. But my company contributes a certain amount to keep costs lower for us, I think something approaching $10k/year per employee.

With a salary of $100k, that's only ~3% "extra". If you're making $50k, that's 6%. If you're making $25k, that's 12%.

If my company did not contribute, it would be 13%, 26%, and 52%, respectively.

You can see how the lower and lower-middle class (can) get absolutely screwed when it comes to just base healthcare costs. With universal healthcare, the lower class wins while the upper class has to chip in a little more. There's nothing unfair or wrong about that. We all live together in a society.

The bulk of the money has to come from somewhere, though. The low-hanging fruit is taxing those with ungodly amounts who made/make it on the backs of your average American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,753
6,368
136
Maybe it's time to realize that capitalism doesn't work with democracy since the democratic politicians become an extension of the capitalists and not the people.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,370
3,077
146
Maybe it's time to realize that capitalism doesn't work with democracy since the democratic politicians become an extension of the capitalists and not the people.

Capitalism has worked better than anything else we've came up with. It does need robust controls tho.