,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Elizabeth Warren is announcing a wealth tax on fortunes of more than $50 million. While affecting roughly 0.06% of American households it would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/…
But liberal economists like Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez say the primary purpose of such a tax isn't to raise money, it's combat inequality. Today the top 1% own as much as the bottom 95% of families, a radical shift from several decades ago. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/… 
Because the rich use their wealth as a source of political power, it's also useful to think of the wealth tax as a tax on political power, shifting the power balance in the US away from billionaires and toward the less wealthy. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/…
Here's how it would affect a hypothetical person with a fortune of $100 million, assuming an annual 5.5% return on their wealth. With a 2% tax in place after 10 years their fortune would be worth $152 million, compared to $171 million without the tax. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/…
A lot of folks on here talking about tax evasion as if it's some kind of gotcha. Warren and her advisors have, uh, thought through this one. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/…
Another interesting stat: when you look at current tax law through the prism of wealth, rather than income, the super-wealthy have a much smaller tax burden than everyone else. washingtonpost.com/business/2019/…
One argument you often hear is that we shouldn't worry about inequality because overall standards of living have been rising for everyone -- sure you may have a smaller piece of the pie, relative to the rich, but it's still bigger than the piece you had 30 years ago.
There's an extent to which this is true for income, but it's not for wealth. The net worth of the median American family today is slightly lower than it was in 1983, in inflation-adjusted terms. In absolute terms, you're getting a smaller slice of pie than you had 30 years ago.
