Elizabeth Warren's Budget Math Still Doesn't Work

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  3 weeks ago  •  67 comments

Elizabeth Warren's Budget Math Still Doesn't Work
The Massachusetts senator is promising to pay for programs with a wealth tax, but simple math says otherwise.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


On the campaign trail, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is promising voters that she "has a plan for that"—no matter what "that" is.

But her plans don't add up.

Take Warren's appearance last week on The View, where she overestimated the number of programs she could fund with her proposed wealth tax of 2 percent on personal net worth over $50 million dollars and 3 percent on net worth over $1 billion. Warren name-checked her student loan forgiveness and tuition-free college plan, her childcare plan, and a proposal to increase teacher pay as programs she'd fund with the wealth tax.  

According to University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, Warren's wealth tax would raise $2.75 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Warren's student loan forgiveness and tuition-free college plan would forgive up to $50,000 in student debt owed by households who earn less than $100,000 in income while offering smaller student debt forgiveness to households earning between $100,000 and $250,000. The plan also would make every public two-year and four-year college in the country tuition-free, increase Pell Grant funding by $100 billion, and create a fund to support historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Combined, this plan would cost $1.25 trillion over the next decade.

Warren's child-care plan has several planks: providing universal pre-K, funding childcare for all, and raising childcare worker wages. Specifically, the plan would have the federal government work with state and local governments to create a network of free child care centers, preschool, and in-home care options, while raising child care worker wages to those of comparable public school teachers. This combination of proposals will cost roughly $1.7 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysisfrom Moody's.

Warren also mentioned a plan to raise teacher pay on top of these other proposals. The Massachusetts senator hasn't released a policy on raising teacher pay specifically, so let's instead look at plans from fellow Democratic candidates Julian Castro and Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.). Harris's plan to raise average annual teacher pay by $13,500 would cost $315 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Harris campaign. I reached out to the Warren campaign to see if they had a cost estimate for their teacher pay plan, but the campaign has yet to respond. I will update this post if the campaign gets back to me, and in the meantime, I used $315 billion as an approximation.

Taken altogether, Warren's proposals would cost $3.265 trillion* over the next decade, compared to the $2.75 trillion raised by the wealth tax. That means a wealth tax isn't enough to fund these programs. But that's a common theme among Democratic policy proposals released thus far. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) offered $15 trillion in tax increases to fund Medicare for All, which is estimated to cost $32 trillion. And it's not just Democrats: Republicans passed a roughly $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut without any compensating spending cuts.

What's more, economists have questioned whether $2.75 trillion is an accurate estimate of wealth tax revenue. Former Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called into question Saez and Zucman's estimate, arguing that they dramatically underestimate the enforcement problems with a wealth tax, and said the tax might raise only 40 percent of that projection. The University of Chicago Booth School of Business polled economic experts and found that 73 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that the wealth tax would pose significantly more enforcement challenges than existing taxes due to difficulties of measuring net worth.

European countries have moved away from wealth taxes—12 countries had wealth taxes in 1990, while only four did by 2017. Before those taxes were abolished, they played a minimal role in revenue generation. These countries recognized that the wealth tax poses real economic problems. They treat personal wealth, like a mansion, the same as productive business investments like factories or tools, which impedes both enforcement and economic growth. 

The bottom line is that Warren can't pay for all the things she's promising.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
1  seeder  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    3 weeks ago

Simple math threatens the 2020 pandering parade. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @1    3 weeks ago

Re-read your seed. It accumulates all possible negatives, and declares them factual.

... and this becomes a reason for doing nothing.

Kinda limited...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1    3 weeks ago

Is there anything in particular about Warren proposing tax increases that will not cover all the costs of her programs, er, giveaways that you aren't understanding?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm fine. You?

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Agreed.

This is a simply WTF moment. So a plan that will not come close to paying for itself; and explode the national debt by trillions of dollars is OK?

I thought that the Republicans were bad about deficit spending; and exploding the debt.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1    3 weeks ago

Eventually the government will run out of other peoples

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

Certainly hope so the right needs new people to restore it

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

I am perfectly fine understanding that Warren's big plans and proposals won't be paid for with her new taxes.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

It's all propositions. The outlay side may go up or down. The revenue side may go up or down.

The important thing is to have the ideas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
The important thing is to have the ideas.

Some, like me, for instance, think that paying for all these grandiose "propositions" is more important.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    3 weeks ago

Some, like me, for instance, think that paying for all these grandiose "propositions" is more important.

You feel the same way about the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy?  1.5 trillion, not paid for.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
You feel the same way about the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy? 1.5 trillion, not paid f

Yes  I do.

See, I know neither party is fiscally responsible..

But the simple fact is that tax cuts aren't the same as programs which cost money. A tax cut doesn't cost anything at all, and can be offset with spending reductions.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.11  livefreeordie  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

This persistent claim only demonstrates that the left lacks a basic understanding of both economics and government

tax cuts are NOT expenditures and thus there is nothing to pay for.

the problem with government as embraced by Marxist statists is their insatiable need to seize and spend other people’s money.

Warren and the rest of the Marxist Dems are all promising new spending that dwarfs our total current government spending and no economic model can be foundd that supports their promises

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
So a plan that will not come close to paying for itself; and explode the national debt by trillions of dollars is OK?

As long as it's a looney left plan, sure.  *eyeroll*

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.11    3 weeks ago
tax cuts are NOT expenditures and thus there is nothing to pay for

We really can't say that often enough.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.13    3 weeks ago
We really can't say that often enough.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

- Joseph Goebbels

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    3 weeks ago
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

that worked right up until they created the internet.

now the PTB must censor those who call bs... and even that does not work.

the streisand effect is alive and well online.

PTB say: do not read this = everyone goes and reads that.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    3 weeks ago

Okay.

Let's look at it LOGICALLY, shall we?

Let's say the govt. takes in $100 in taxes. A tax cut is instituted, and now the govt. takes in $90.

Please tell us where the govt. has paid anything for that tax cut, and tell us who the money went to.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    3 weeks ago
Let's look at it LOGICALLY, shall we?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

You take in $100.

You spend $10

You have $90 for the rest of your bills.

---

The government takes in $100

Decided to cut taxes by $10

The government still has only $90 to pay bills with.

---

You're trying to argue semantics.

Or in the words of Trump's financial puppet:

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    3 weeks ago
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

The lie in question being that letting me keep more of my own money is somehow a government expenditure.  

In no other realm of accounting is "money you don't collect" an "expenditure".  

It's one of many lies that permeates Democratic Party rhetoric these days, which is one reason they lost the WH.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

 Except here is the best idea yet, let’s have everyone pay for their own shit .

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    3 weeks ago

If the govt. takes in less, it should SPEND less.

How hard is this?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
If the govt. takes in less, it should SPEND less. How hard is this?

If you need to ask, there is no point in trying to explain it.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.22  livefreeordie  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.21    3 weeks ago

Texan, we must remember that the Marxist left believe that what you earn is not really yours. It. Belongs to our slave master, the State, who decides how much of what we earn they will allow us to have.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.22    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.24  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.23    3 weeks ago

You mean like Trump's tax cuts for the rich resulting in trillion dollar deficits?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.24    3 weeks ago
You mean like Trump's tax cuts for the rich resulting in trillion dollar deficits?

You still refuse to see that without spending, there ARE NO DEFICITS.

If the govt. took in $100 in taxes, and had that reduced to $90, that is still $90 any way you want to look at it. No deficit, right, because the govt. hasn't spent any money yet, it still has the $90.Deficits ONLY come into play when govt. spends more than it takes in.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.26  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.25    3 weeks ago
You still refuse to see that without spending, there ARE NO DEFICITS.

So, you are advocating that the government stop ALL spending?  How is Trump going to build his stupid wall if he can't spend any money?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.26    3 weeks ago
So, you are advocating that the government stop ALL spending? How is Trump going to build his stupid wall if he can't spend any money?

Of course not. The comment is absurd. I never stated anything of the sort, and it is intellectually dishonest and lazy to argue stuff I haven't claimed or stated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.22    3 weeks ago

MANY of the left don't have any sense of economics.

And it shows painfully.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.29  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.26    3 weeks ago
So, you are advocating that the government stop ALL spending?

Do explain what would be wrong with them spending less than they take in.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.30  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
Do explain what would be wrong with them spending less than they take in.

Well because Democratic administrations have to spend more to fix what the previous Republican administration broke.  But even after all that, Democrats spend less than Republicans historically.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.31  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.30    3 weeks ago
Well because Democratic administrations have to spend more to fix what the previous Republican administration broke.

I guess you're totally abandoning rational thought these days?  

  But even after all that, Democrats spend less than Republicans historically.

Or...in the real world....regardless of the party each administration spends more than the one before.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.30    3 weeks ago

Which has nothing--NOTHING--to do with what was asked.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @1    3 weeks ago
Simple math threatens the 2020 pandering parade. 

To her credit, she's talking about plans that would potentially be doable without wrecking the entire US economy.  $3.6 trillion over 10 years is at least planet earth math, unlike Bernicare ($50-$60 trillion over 10 years) or Green New Deal ($55-$100 trillion over 10 years).

Now, I realize that she's just trying to buy votes with other people's money, but it's not such an amount of money that we'll all be on govt assistance within 18 months.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    3 weeks ago
unlike Bernicare ($50-$60 trillion over 10 years) or Green New Deal ($55-$100 trillion over 10 years)

Can I pull some numbers out of my ass too?

Let's see, Berniecare will cost a total of $500 every 10 years.  Green New Deal is currently on sale for $1.95/year.

Hey this is fun, making shit up!!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

You go right ahead and play fantasy math.  It's a leftist tradition.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

You go right ahead and play fantasy math.  It's a leftist tradition.

Just following your lead...

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

The really important thing is …… "They" …… Like her. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

She does carry a big bag of Hiccups ! She puts it "Under the Table" when she speaks.

Anyone for a "Beer" ?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1  KDMichigan  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1    3 weeks ago

It was her Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great …whew…. Great, Great, Great grandmother. So she was told anyway. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Ah yes the one that crossed the land bridge before Native Americans. That's why her Native American blood line didn't pan out, she is more Native than todays Native Americans.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1    3 weeks ago

"The object clearly does not match the inset, and you can see for yourself in the photos below that the object is actually a Grecian urn."

"Warrens campaign posted two photos of her kitchen cabinet from different angles that show the figurine is actually a vase, and not one with racist overtones."

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/jan/18/viral-image/no-elizabeth-warren-doesnt-have-racist-art-her-kit/

The whopper of a lie claiming it was a racist artifact (that many right wingers apparently thought they recognized only because they have several real ones on their shelves) earned the full "PANTS ON FIRE" rating.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1    3 weeks ago

So she is not promising everyone a copy of her Pow Wow Chow cookbook?  How sad!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.5  KDMichigan  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

It's a joke don't take it so hard.

Now what isn't a joke is the proposals this ancestor thief has put out there.

Free Healthcare. Yes we know that the socialist in this country think this is a great idea and all we have to do is tax the rich to pay for it.

Free college. Also wipe the slate clean of the 1.25 trillion student loan debts. And of course she paying for this by taxing the rich.

Free child care. Of course the 700 billion would come from taxing the rich.

500 billion so everyone can have a home.....Deja Vu

And of course Reparations for blacks just to cement that vote.

Seems to me like this "scholar" puts a lot of faith on taxes coming from a minority.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3  FLYNAVY1    3 weeks ago

For better or worse, Warren seems to be the only person on either side of the aisle right now that is showing any modicum of leadership on any issue.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    3 weeks ago

If you want to label far left wing socialist fukwadism leadership.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1    3 weeks ago

Is fuckwadism anything like the douchebaggery we keep hearing about?

Warren is showing leadership by presenting her plans unlike many others.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Warren has no plan other than to promote azzdouchery to the masses.

Plus, we also know at this point she has no fucking chance to gain the nomination.  She is simply not electable which is generally why the Demoncrats are favoring Creepy Joe at this point much to the chagrin of progressive base.   It will be fun watching them blow up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Warren is showing leadership by presenting her plans unlike many others.

Leadership?

Leadership??

Let me hit that pipe!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

   jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

Are you saying that having ideas, and opening them up for public discussion, is not leadership?

Wow.....

Would you like to have an absolute monarch?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

A fucking monkey could have an idea, as well as a 5 year old child.

Doesn't make them leaders by any stretch of an adult imagination.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

'A fucking monkey could have an idea, as well as a 5 year old child.

Doesn't make them leaders by any stretch of an adult imagination.'

Sounds like you're referring to the 'president'.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Although monkeys and 5 year old children are much smarter.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
Sounds like you're referring to the 'president'.

Well, no big surprise you would think so.

TDS is all-consuming for some.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
'A fucking monkey could have an idea, as well as a 5 year old child.

Doesn't make them leaders by any stretch of an adult imagination.'

Sounds like you're referring to the 'president'.

So we're all in agreement that just because one has an "idea", that does not make one a "leader".

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Did you know that Warren was the person we were discussing?

How is Trump in any way related to Warren's "big" ideas?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
I've been asking for conservatives' ideas here on NT for years, now... without success.

What a crock. I have seen ideas presented to you, and if they don't jibe with your views, you immediately dismiss them.

Here is an idea----only spend the money govt, takes in. No need to depend on govt. to support people who are capable of supporting themselves. College-educate your OWN children if you wish at your own expense.

How's THAT for ya?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
only spend the money govt, takes in.

Excellent idea, on the condition that revenues are increased to cover needs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.12    3 weeks ago

What do you consider needs?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    3 weeks ago

Whatever the voters decide.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.14    3 weeks ago

Lame. Voters don;t actually vote on federal policies.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.15    3 weeks ago

Seriously?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3    3 weeks ago
For better or worse, Warren seems to be the only person on either side of the aisle right now that is showing any modicum of leadership on any issue.

Campaigning for unrealistic ideas is not leadership, and there are still great portions of her "plan" that are utterly unrealistic. 

If an admiral had declared that Navy fighters were going to use Pensacola as the main airstrip for missions over Iraq with no mid-air refueling, you would not consider that "leadership".  

Neither do plans constitute "leadership" if they require the collection of completely implausible tax amounts.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Recycling failed ideas that didn’t work in Europe.

shes the perfect progressive.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
4.1  seeder  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago

Well she is new to progressiveness. When she was a filthy corporate lawyer scalping employees from their benefits she voted Republican. She was a rank and file. Then she had the epiphany of how to get elected in her home state and well started pandering.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @4.1    3 weeks ago
Then she had the epiphany of how to get elected in her home state and well started pandering

John Hickenlooper (D) knows what happens when you actually tell Liberals the Truth. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

CB
XXJefferson#51
epistte


62 visitors