Democratic primary candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren thinks she has a handle on the economic and social problems of Americans, nothing could be further from the truth.
Even among Democrats and Wall Street investors, there has been dissatisfaction with Warren’s impractical proposals.
According to Reuters, both donors and investors wondered whether Warren’s proposals could have serious repercussions for the country, pointing out that they feared that her plan to fund social projects through the collection of millions in taxes would have unintended consequences.
“Senator Warren is saying things that are difficult to enact, and I don’t know how you end up paying for them,” said Marc Lasry, president of Avenue Capital Group, who is also a donor to several opponents of the congresswoman for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential race.
Renowned investor Leon Cooperman went so far as to describe the congressman in a negative way, pointing out, “She represents the worst of politicians” and says that her proposals “are counterproductive,” since “you cannot make the poor rich making the rich poor.”
According to an opinion column by Vivek Saxena, a columnist for BizPac Review, the Democrat’s utopian proposals in universal health care, child care, education, among others, could mean “widespread poverty not seen since America’s inception.”
Saxena cites research by Marie Fishpaw and Jamie Hall of the Heritage Foundation to point to the high cost Warren’s proposals would bring to the budget of working middle class families.
“As a result, 73.5% of Americans will have less money in their pockets under “Medicare for All.” The cost of the new taxes they have to pay will be more than what they save on health care costs,” the research warns.
According to the research, several reports indicate that even low-income families who benefit from care programs such as Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program will face losses up to an estimated $5,592 per year.
Regarding the consequences of a tax increase, the columnist Saxena to the words of U.S. consultant Steve Tobak, who has worked for more than 20 years with small and medium technology companies. Tobak said, “A wealth tax would cause an annual liquidity crisis as investors who fund a sizable portion of the U.S. economy struggle to come up with the cash to pay their tax bills.”
A Wall Street Journal report published in mid-November states, “She [Elizabeth Warren] wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth, and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don’t sell their assets.”
“Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest.” Fiscal policy journalist Richard Rubin of the Wall Street Journal added, “If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.”
Vivek Saxena depicts the difficult scenario that a large number of employees and customers of a company would have to live if the owner makes the decision to liquidate his assets and leave the country in search of better conditions regarding tax laws.
“What do you suppose would happen to every working-class family’s income then? Better yet, what do you suppose would happen to the income of the businessman’s now-unemployed former employees?” Saxena adds.