![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I decided I finally felt good enough to go for a walk. M. had been visiting (not Saturday, but thereafter), but I had not been walking with her because I just didn’t feel up to it. But we went around the block today and it went fine.
Also, I found this:
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-warren.pdf
This is a description of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed 2% wealth tax on households with more than $50 million in assets (tax is on the amount _above_ the $50 M threshold), and an additional 1% tax on assets above $1 billion.
The authors of this have some sort of connection to Piketty. I know, he’s a darling of the left, but I’ve read his book and I have no respect for anyone who writes crap like that. I’m really disappointed in Warren. I used to really _want_ her to run for President; now, I really don’t. I have visions of a bunch of people highly placed on the Forbes list — mostly because of their ownership of their companies — suddenly thinking it would be a really good idea to support the Republican side in the next round of elections, to avoid the risk of this thing ever coming to pass. Making the cost-benefit analysis favor supporting Republicans to that small group of people seems pretty no-brainer. I suppose the theory is that it will galvanize Democratic voters? Maybe? Maybe it is a cynical ploy, toss out this 2%/3% ultra wealthy wealth tax, and then adding more marginal tax brackets with higher rates seems downright reasonable? I don’t know.
Finally, I don’t see anything in Saez and Zucman’s analysis to account for the inevitable dodges like creating a whole bunch of revocable trusts, each less than $50 million, as a way to dodge this thing entirely. Maybe that wouldn’t work? But I bet there could be endless litigation trying to figure it out.
ETA: Just think about the impact on political donations this proposal might generate.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
If the top of the Forbes list is looking at owing a few billion a year in wealth tax, the top of that list might see a lot of much larger numbers in it, and donations might switch columns. Better galvanize a metric fuck ton of voters, to compensate for that.
Also, I found this:
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-warren.pdf
This is a description of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed 2% wealth tax on households with more than $50 million in assets (tax is on the amount _above_ the $50 M threshold), and an additional 1% tax on assets above $1 billion.
The authors of this have some sort of connection to Piketty. I know, he’s a darling of the left, but I’ve read his book and I have no respect for anyone who writes crap like that. I’m really disappointed in Warren. I used to really _want_ her to run for President; now, I really don’t. I have visions of a bunch of people highly placed on the Forbes list — mostly because of their ownership of their companies — suddenly thinking it would be a really good idea to support the Republican side in the next round of elections, to avoid the risk of this thing ever coming to pass. Making the cost-benefit analysis favor supporting Republicans to that small group of people seems pretty no-brainer. I suppose the theory is that it will galvanize Democratic voters? Maybe? Maybe it is a cynical ploy, toss out this 2%/3% ultra wealthy wealth tax, and then adding more marginal tax brackets with higher rates seems downright reasonable? I don’t know.
Finally, I don’t see anything in Saez and Zucman’s analysis to account for the inevitable dodges like creating a whole bunch of revocable trusts, each less than $50 million, as a way to dodge this thing entirely. Maybe that wouldn’t work? But I bet there could be endless litigation trying to figure it out.
ETA: Just think about the impact on political donations this proposal might generate.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
If the top of the Forbes list is looking at owing a few billion a year in wealth tax, the top of that list might see a lot of much larger numbers in it, and donations might switch columns. Better galvanize a metric fuck ton of voters, to compensate for that.