If you don’t follow far-left Massachusetts Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren on X, you should — if only for 24 hours. Hilarity reigns, as Warren never misses a concocted opportunity to rail against “profiteering” corporations, “the rich” not paying their “fair share,” and “free” this and “free” that.
Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have long pushed for a wealth tax that would begin with billionaires. Unlike Sanders, who believes billionaires shouldn’t even be allowed to exist, Warren “only” thinks they should be taxed to smithereens (See: wealth redistribution).
Now Warren, along with leftist Democrat Reps. Pramila Jayapal (WA) and Brendan F. Boyle (PA), have reintroduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax, which would impose a wealth tax and captivity tax (“exit tax”), and would also allot $100 billion for increasing tax audits on the the wealthy.
As law professor, author, and political commentator Jonathan Turley called it in a Wednesday column, an “Eat the Rich” plan. As you might imagine, Turley isn’t a fan of a wealth tax — and that’s just the beginning.
The wealth tax is back. We have previously discussed the constitutional and policy concerns surrounding the push by Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) to introduce a wealth tax that would start with billionaires. It would not likely end there.
The law would also apply the same type of California approach to wealthy families fleeing the tax grab with a huge “exit tax” so that there is no escaping from the tax vortex.
The captivity tax highlights the wealth-redistribution mindset underlying Warren’s “experiment.” Warren thrilled audiences for years by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.”
In one Democratic debate, she got applause by rubbing her hands together after stating that she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire worth $65 million. She has now made good on that threat.
Like many Democrat-backed plans, Warren’s cash-grabbing scheme would likely disincentivize upper- and lower-income workers. The higher the tax burden on the wealthy, the less inclined they might be to generate taxable income in any given year. Conversely, the more the federal government “takes from the rich and gives to the poor,” the less incentive to work for those who learn to depend on government assistance.
Lest you think the Democrat Party is stupid, consider the following famous quote from Irish playwright and avowed socialist, George Bernard Shaw:
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Shaw wasn’t stupid and neither is the Democrat Party.
There are far more Pauls in the world than Peters. Hence, lower-income voters are more likely to vote for politicians who support massive taxpayer-funded government assistance programs than those who don’t.
Speaking of taxes, Turley laid it out, perfectly (emphasis, mine).
It is worth noting that the top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.” The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent federal income taxes,. The bottom 50 percent paid the only 2.3 percent.
Even more stark, in 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total adjusted gross income and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.
The Bottom Line
When Warren, Sanders, Biden, and other Democrats whine about the rich not paying their “fair share,” here’s the salient question: How much is that “fair share” — and who gets to decide what’s fair and what isn’t? A rhetorical question, of course, because we know damn well who the Democrats think should make the call.
RELATED:
Biden Trots Out Massive Tax and Spend Proposal, Absurdly Believes He Can Spend America to Prosperity
Biden Fact-Checked Into Low Orbit Over Billionaire Tax Claim
