Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is bad politics and worse policy
Even Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden think this is a bad idea
Most Americans have never heard of Lloyd Blankfein or know he ran Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis. But Blankfein continues to be a popular villain for populists on the left and right. For instance, he appeared in Donald Trump's closing 2016 commercial attacking the "global political establishment."
And he also pops up in Elizabeth Warren's new ad featuring billionaires who dislike her wealth tax idea. Along with Blankfein, Warren highlights criticism from investor Leon Cooperman, venture capitalist Peter Thiel, and financial entrepreneur Joe Ricketts. Warren's closing zinger: "All we're saying is when you make it big, pitch in two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it." Or in other words, "Okay billionaire."
As demagoguery goes, it's mild stuff. The Trump ad, by contrast, seemed to go out of its way to feature Jewish Americans and was widely criticized as anti-semetic. Warren's rogues gallery of the rich mainly share a dislike for Warrenomics. Yet the ad is demagoguery nonetheless in its attempt to portray Warren's critics as cold-hearted capitalists who won't even spare a bit of pocket change to help the less blessed.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The Warren wealth tax is far more punitive than the ad suggests, even allowing for considerable political puffery. It's not 2 cents or even 2 percent. Warren's latest version of the wealth tax is a 2 percent tax on wealth between $50 million and $1 billion and a 6 percent tax on wealth over $1 billion. The tax is cumulative and would be applied year after year, slowly whittling down existing fortunes and preventing future megafortunes from being created. The New York Times notes that had the Warren wealth tax already been in place for decades, Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, would have been worth $50 billion last year instead of $160 billion, Bill Gates $14 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion, and the Forbes 400 overall would have had an average worth of $3 billion, down from the current $7 billion.
Boo-hoo, billionaires, right? Even with a wealth tax in place, many future generations of Bezoses and Gateses won't need to finance their Ivy League college education through loans and working the front desk at the campus rec center. They'll probably be fine through the year 2119, at least. And besides, the rest of us need their money to pay for our college educations — not to mention our health care, child care, and housing. (Well, at least that might be the case if we want more government without a value-added or other type of consumption tax, as is found in other rich nations.)
Certainly the Warren wealth tax qualifies as the sort of "big structural change" she says America needs. But Warren surely doesn't want to change everything. One would assume Warren wants America to remain the sort of place where ambitious dreamers create companies that eventually get so big and powerful they need someone like Warren to come along and break them up.
So here's what Warren is asking America to believe: Under a Warren presidency, Washington would tax wealth in a way and at levels most other advanced economies have rejected. (Even Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland rolled back their wealth taxes in recent years.) But not just that. Warren also wants to sharply raise taxes on business profits, investment, and incomes overall. So kind of a lot. And despite all that big structural change, there would be no meaningful change to American private-sector innovation and investment? No change in the decision making or actions of Bezos and Gates? How can she be so sure?
Many economists aren't. Indeed, a new study finds that the wealth tax alone would slow economic growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade. That may not sound like much, but it's a tenth of forecasted economic growth over the next 10 years. Moreover, the study doesn't even try to specifically calculate the effect of the wealth tax on the sort of high-impact entrepreneurship that gave us the Google search engine, Apple's iPhone, or Amazon Prime.
Now every rich person isn't Bezos or Gates. But more than ever before, America's richest of the rich started out as middle-class kids who built a super successful business. But to Warren, apparently heiresses, oligarchs, and entrepreneurs are all pretty much the same: All members of America's "rigged economy" who need to pay up — well, need to pay up more. Much more. Okay senator.
Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
James Pethokoukis is the DeWitt Wallace Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he runs the AEIdeas blog. He has also written for The New York Times, National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and other places.
-
Ukraine fires ATACMS, Russia ups hybrid war
Speed Read Ukraine shot U.S.-provided long-range missiles and Russia threatened retaliation
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
New York DA floats 4-year Trump sentencing freeze
Speed Read President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing is on hold, and his lawyers are pushing to dismiss the case while he's in office
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Wicked fails to defy gravity
Talking Point Film version of hit stage musical weighed down by 'sense of self-importance'
By Tess Foley-Cox Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published