Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 62,331
- 53,497
- 3,615
I can't believe even the window licking Dimwinger base is dumb enough to vote for this batshit crazy loon.
Notice how her .02 has already tripled to .06 cents.
Elizabeth Warren’s Tax Plan Would Bring Rates Over 100% for Some
WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled sweeping tax proposals that would push federal tax rates on some billionaires and multimillionaires above 100%.
That prospect raises questions for taxpayers and the broader economy that experts are starting to ponder: Under which circumstances would taxpayers have to pay those rates? How might that change their behavior? And would investment and economic growth suffer?
Potential tax rates over 100% could result from the combination of tax increases the Massachusetts senator proposes for the very top tier of investors. She wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don’t sell their assets.
Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.
The rate would vary according to the investor’s circumstances, any state taxes, the profitability of his investments and as-yet-unspecified policy details, but tax rates of over 100% on investment income would be typical, especially for billionaires.
“It’s just a continuing laundry list of proposals that just keep heaping on,” said Robert Gordon of Twenty-First Securities Corp., an investment advisory firm.
Ms. Warren’s tax plans, aimed at paying to expand health care, child care, housing and education programs, are the clearest expression of progressive Democrats’ fiscal philosophy. They lean heavily on taxes at the top of the income and wealth scale to finance these expanded programs.
Such moves would bring the U.S. closer to other industrialized nations in the level of taxation, but without the high taxes on retail sales that most use to finance social spending.
“We can do all of this with new taxes on financial firms, giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans,” said Saloni Sharma, a Warren campaign spokeswoman.
Ms. Warren has talked most about her plan, announced in January, to impose a 2% annual tax on wealth above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion, which she doubled to 6% this month to pay for Medicare for All. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a rival for the nomination, proposed a similar tax.
Elizabeth Warren’s Tax Plan Would Bring Rates Over 100% for Some
Notice how her .02 has already tripled to .06 cents.
Elizabeth Warren’s Tax Plan Would Bring Rates Over 100% for Some
WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled sweeping tax proposals that would push federal tax rates on some billionaires and multimillionaires above 100%.
That prospect raises questions for taxpayers and the broader economy that experts are starting to ponder: Under which circumstances would taxpayers have to pay those rates? How might that change their behavior? And would investment and economic growth suffer?
Potential tax rates over 100% could result from the combination of tax increases the Massachusetts senator proposes for the very top tier of investors. She wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don’t sell their assets.
Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.
The rate would vary according to the investor’s circumstances, any state taxes, the profitability of his investments and as-yet-unspecified policy details, but tax rates of over 100% on investment income would be typical, especially for billionaires.
“It’s just a continuing laundry list of proposals that just keep heaping on,” said Robert Gordon of Twenty-First Securities Corp., an investment advisory firm.
Ms. Warren’s tax plans, aimed at paying to expand health care, child care, housing and education programs, are the clearest expression of progressive Democrats’ fiscal philosophy. They lean heavily on taxes at the top of the income and wealth scale to finance these expanded programs.
Such moves would bring the U.S. closer to other industrialized nations in the level of taxation, but without the high taxes on retail sales that most use to finance social spending.
“We can do all of this with new taxes on financial firms, giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans,” said Saloni Sharma, a Warren campaign spokeswoman.
Ms. Warren has talked most about her plan, announced in January, to impose a 2% annual tax on wealth above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion, which she doubled to 6% this month to pay for Medicare for All. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a rival for the nomination, proposed a similar tax.
Elizabeth Warren’s Tax Plan Would Bring Rates Over 100% for Some
