3 ms·

Thank goodness it’s $50 million because if it were a quarter of that then $174,000/year salaried senator Elizabeth Warren, worth $12 million, would be liable to

• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• culi 2mo ago
  It's only a tax on wealth above $50m. If she ever reaches that level of net worth, I highly doubt she'd have trouble paying a 2% tax on it. The 1935 Revenue Tax was essentially a wealth tax and it brought great levels of prosperity as well as continued entrepreneurship
  • zahlman 2mo ago
    > If she ever reaches that level of net worth, I highly doubt she'd have trouble paying a 2% tax on it. The point is that politicians (and political influencers) have a habit of proposing thresholds for taxation on rich people that manage to stay above their own personal level of wealth (or income). It comes across as self-serving. The thresholds should have some actual calculation behind them that doesn't appear motivated by the speaker's personal situation.
    • culi 2mo ago
      I understand your point and was responding directly. That is, I don't think you're point is supported. The cutoff is far above what she makes. For her to pay anything significant she'd have to have a net worth well above $100m. She also justifies the $50m explicitly. That is roughly the percentile where 0.1% of people would be affected. The other cutoff (where the tax goes up to 3%) is at $1b. That is where 0.05% of people are affected.