This study is not an analysis of Elizabeth’s actual wealth tax plan.
The reason the study finds less revenue is because of evasion. But the study admits that it does not account for the very strong anti-evasion measures Elizabeth built into her plan.
It’s meaningless.
The reason the study finds less revenue is because of evasion. But the study admits that it does not account for the very strong anti-evasion measures Elizabeth built into her plan.
It’s meaningless.
The study’s analysis of the growth impact of Elizabeth’s plan is also absurd.
It doesn’t analyze a single one of the actual investments she wants to fund with the wealth tax— like universal child care and early education — and just analyzes some other investments instead.
It doesn’t analyze a single one of the actual investments she wants to fund with the wealth tax— like universal child care and early education — and just analyzes some other investments instead.
If you want to read about how Elizabeth’s actual plans increase economic growth, you can check out these independent analyses:
economy.com/mark-zandi/doc…
economy.com/getlocal?q=867…
economy.com/mark-zandi/doc…
economy.com/mark-zandi/doc…
economy.com/getlocal?q=867…
economy.com/mark-zandi/doc…
But really, all you need to know about the economic model in this study is that it finds that using wealth tax revenue to pay down the deficit produces more growth than using it for investments like infrastructure or research and development.
Does that seem right to you?
Does that seem right to you?
