“Elizabeth Warren to propose new ‘wealth tax’ on very rich Americans, economist says” (Washington Post):
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new annual “wealth tax” on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation’s soaring wealth inequality.
Since announcing her presidential bid, Warren has pitched herself a champion of the working class against elites, arguing “billionaires and big corporations” have rigged the political and economic system to their advantage.
One billionaire who has been in the news lately is anonymous. She is the winner of $1.5 billion (pre-tax) in a government-run lottery (i.e., the same government that says it wants to fix the “problem” of wealth inequality will periodically create billionaires at random).
Should she have to pay Sachem Warren’s new wealth tax? It was a government-run lottery that made her rich. How is it reasonable to complain about her being richer than neighbors and impose a new tax to further trim her winnings?
Related:
- Warren’s web site shows a proposed 40 percent exit tax on anyone who renounces U.S. citizenship in an attempt to escape (will we finally be free of these hated billionaires in the fall of 2020 if it looks as though Donald Trump is going to lose?)
- https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/02/13/aoc-tax-plan-is-a-conspiracy/ (under current law, any billionaire who lives in Puerto Rico for 183 days per year should be exempt from this federal tax)
Why do proposed progressive solutions never solve anything?
Yes, they should. The lottery is already a government windfall and that’s the point of it. And the lottery and all the scratch-off games and so forth are as bad or worse than payday loans at preying on the poor, innumerate, superstitious, desperate, and so forth. Someone should do an undercover operation showing people getting a payday loan and then watching them take it to buy lottery tickets and scratch-offs.
My feeling about the lottery has always been that if anyone wins, they should keep *all* of it. Completely tax-free regardless of the payout.
From her point of view a big tax on those lottery billionaires (they didn’t build those lotteries!) would make sense — by making the state run lotteries less attractive she will make the tribal gambling entities more attractive and demonstrate her tribal loyalties and garner lots of votes. She will then become the first woman of color in the oval office — just like she was the first woman of color on the Harvard Law faculty.
Related: Massachusetts apparently has the highest frequency of miraculously lucky repeat lottery winners in America. One theory goes that some people are cashing in others’ tickets so they can avoid paying taxes on the winnings. One lucky fellow has won 1,246 times as of October, 2018. Ali Jafarr has an amazing gift for winning $1,000 prizes! MA Lottery claims to be cracking down on these “superwinners.”
https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/10/24/repeat-lottery-winners-policy-massachusetts
OK, let’s say we’ll never see the day that the Federal and State governments stop taxing lottery winnings. Couldn’t they at least find a way to crack down on the fraud? One of the problems I see with any new anti-fraud on scratch-off tickets is that with modern communication technology it’s very easy and cheap to expand one’s network of superlucky winners who miraculously cash in all the time. With a pool of 1,000 “cashers” selected at random using suitable technology, I’ll bet an organized crime group could do very, very well indeed.
Local color: The taxes. There’s a guy who was recently featured in a local Patch. He lives in Worcester Co. and just won $1M with a scratch-off ticket ($30!) but that’s just the beginning: five years prior he had won $10 million on a different scratch-off ticket.
Patch reported that he: “…took the one-time cash option of $650,000, minus tax withholdings.” I wonder how much of the $10 million prize he spent over the past 5 years trying to win again, only to get $650,000 “minus tax withholdings” which for that amount are 25% Federal Lottery and 5% MA Lottery. So he nets $455,000.
It is indicator of sad state of American public life when someone with track record of Elizabeth Warren is considered to have high probability of winning US presidency.
I mean if GWB and Trump can win, the precedent is set for a lifetime of failure being just fine. Warren’s track record is considerably more accomplished.
Easy grader, elected from MA and misrepresented her heritage for (sic) professional advancement? Sounds like a dream for best and brightest with C- GPA.
While ribbing Warren for her idiotic statements and action regarding her supposed ‘indian’ heritage is perfectly OK (no matter what Vince might say), since the uncharitable reading of her words and actions show a profound (and racist) misunderstanding of everything associated with Native American history and culture, calling her ‘Sachem’ is racist in its own right (the same as calling her Pocahontas btw): it is associating an Anglo idiot with a culture (or a set of cultures), or a person, with no wish to be associated with said Anglo idiot.
If I told people I am a Goldman jew, would it be Ok to call me Rabbi?
If I am certifiably not Anglo, may I please call her Pocahontas? ’cause I’m loving it.
I’m totally fine if called a racist just because of that. And if they call me names, I will surely find something insulting to call them back. Since I’ve been deplorable since 2016, it’s got to be alright.
Explain how it is alright to be racist.
Vince, it is not right to be racist — but I would argue most of the things Phil says about Warren are an uncomfortable ribbing of *her* racism. As I said, calling her ‘Sachem’ does cross the line.
M, not it is not fine if you are not Anglo to call her Pocahontas. The real Pocahontas might have not wanted to be associated with Warren in any way, nor to have her own name used to mock Warren. It is also specifically racist because Pocahontas was Powhatan and Warren claimed to be Cherokee (so it is the equivalent of calling ‘Angela Merkel’ someone who claims French nationality) — ignoring the fact that Native Americans had, in fact different Nations with different cultures is especially racist.
“Prize money = taxable income: Lottery winnings are taxed like income, and the IRS taxes the top income bracket 39.6%.” [1].
If you already paid taxes, why should you be taxes again and again? I’m fine if you get taxes on new income you make off the prize but no way I would keep paying on the existing prize more than as if it was a one time income.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/08/pf/taxes/powerball-jackpot-tax-bill/index.html
Paying over and over on the same money is the definition of a wealth tax, which is exactly what’s being “debated” here.
@Z, that’s the point I’m making in this discussion.
Imagine that you worked your butt off for X years and saved $10M in cash all along the way paying taxes as you build up your cash saving (this is no different than winning the lottery). Than one day you decided to retire and not work or make any more money — just live off your $10M cash saving. Why should the government keep taxing you year-after-year on that money you saved and drain it to $0 even if you are not going to use it?
And what if I was saving that cash money in a private / personal safe? Do I still have to report it and pay taxes on it? Will the government audit me and question how I’m living without working or drawing on welfare? If so, shouldn’t the government be auditing the homeless who live off begging for cash? Not that I’m saying they should, just pointing out how this doesn’t make sense.
The reason the government should/would tax people with money over and over again is because:
(1) the government needs money;
(2) the rich have the money;
(3) why not, if we can simply vote to expropriate someone else’s money: surely beats trying to mug them outright.
One benefit of becoming rich is acquiring new life experiences, and extortion is one of those. Notice that people without money would generally not object.
She is the winner of $1.5 billion (pre-tax) in a government-run lottery (i.e., the same government that says it wants to fix the “problem” of wealth inequality will periodically create billionaires at random).
Which government would this be that says that it wants to fix “problem” of wealth inequality?
It if it’s Powerball, then it’s a group of state governments. The assertion makes no sense.
Much more importantly, this issue is a wonderful distraction from things like Wall Street bailouts, in which Big Government actually does increase inequality.
Don’t the states already profit off of the lottery by keeping a portion of it? Something like 1/3d of what amounts to every single payout? If the states were prohibited from keeping a large part, it would seem more reasonable to impose a tax 40% plus of the payout.