Why Is Bill Gates Being Criticized For His Skepticism Over Warren's "Wealth Tax?"

Last Wednesday, at the New York Times DealBook Conference, Bill Gates mentioned that he was concerned that Warren's "Wealth Tax" might go too far.

‘I’ve paid over $10 billion in taxes. … I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes, but I’m glad to — if I’d had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine. But when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over. … I’m just kidding.’

It should be noted that Gates is also on the list of billionaire philanthropists who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charities, according to The Giving Pledge.

Other countries have tried to implement a "wealth tax" and it never was successful. Denmark, France and Sweden ended their wealth taxes in the '90s, because it didn't raise the amount of revenue it was suppose to. In addition, it actually hurt their economies because rich citizens were taking their money out of the country, and tens of thousands of them packed up and left.

Some say that Warren, as well as Bernie Sanders, believes that there's a wealth imbalance in this country. Warren's wealthy tax proposal "draws on the same pot of money every year, making the pile smaller and smaller over time. It's essentially a tax on large savings—the money that investors and entrepreneurs rely on to start new businesses."

Warren wants to levy a 2 percent annual wealth tax on all households with a net worth of over $50 million and a 3 percent annual tax on those households with a net worth of more than $1 billion. Unlike an income tax or a sales tax, both of which tax money when it moves around, a wealth tax draws on the same pot of money every year, making the pile smaller and smaller over time. It's essentially a tax on large savings—the money that investors and entrepreneurs rely on to start new businesses.

The economists who helped Warren design her plan have said that the idea is to make rich people less wealthy: "If very rich people have to pay a percentage of their wealth in taxes each year, it makes it harder for them to maintain their wealth." Analyzing her plan, they wrote that one of its "key motivations" is "to curb the growing concentration of wealth."

So this isn't really about raising tax revenue. It's about using government power to make sure rich people have less. Still, Warren often pitches her plan as a way to raise money to pay for more government entitlements. And on that count, it's likely to fall short

reason.com...

I would like to see the top 1% pay more in taxes, but not at the level Warren proposes. If you push too hard, the ultra-rich will probably move their wealth out of the country, because there would be no more incentive for them to invest. Would there still be an incentive for them to contribute so generously to charitable organizations? On top of that, a wealth tax most likely would hurt our economy and middle class too.

“Once enacted, initial taxes just on the very rich wouldn’t raise much money, and the government would still have massive deficits with rising entitlement costs, so the liberal politicians would push to lower the wealth tax into the middle class,”

“The problem with these plans is … it always starts out that way, you know the income tax was only going to be on the wealthy – these taxes only are going to be on wealthy people – and then before you know it, if you own a nice home, if you own your car, if you have some savings for retirement, before you know it these wealth taxes are going to catch you as well,”

...there could be near-term repercussions for the economy. Rich Americans invest their wealth, creating jobs and income. That means a loss of innovation and opportunity if capital investment is discouraged. It also potentially means slower economic growth.

finance.yahoo.com...

I read an article today on American Thinker, that discusses the concept of "property rights." The article also unabashedly states that the "wealth tax" is "a morally evil policy proposition."

Bill Gates is willing to give half his wealth to vetted charities of his choosing, and I don’t think that anyone could argue that such a pledge is not morally admirable. What he seems less willing to do is give the government license to forcibly confiscate his property at arbitrary and ever-changing levels, as it deems appropriate ongoing, to serve the purposes of government.

...there is an eternal moral difference between Bill Gates pledging his own wealth to provide for the public good via charitable institutions, and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders telling you that they will confiscate his wealth in order to provide “charity” for others via government redistribution. The moral argument as to why one is morally righteous and the other is morally evil really couldn’t be simpler, and we never have to look at a single number to understand why.

Should I not be afforded the same rights to property that another might have who owns less property than I? I should be so protected, in a culture where genuine morality is intact and individual rights are equally applied. So should Bill Gates, and any other American citizen. However popular the unconstitutional notion of a “wealth tax” may become, it will never be anything more or less than a morally depraved and evil proposition which can only serve to erode Americans’ property rights.

www.americanthinker.com...

Thoughts?

Did you watch the clip? I think that when the second richest person in the world gets worried that all his money will go to taxes and he won’t have any left he needs to check himself. It was disgusting. This has nothing to do with him being a philanthropist. This has to do with his poorly timed joke and body language.

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Hey, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but what about the topics that I brought up? Will a wealth tax eventually hurt our economy? Will it hurt middle income Americans? Is the whole premise fair?

I paid more than 3% of my net worth in taxes last year. It didn't stop me from living my life like I always have. And I'm assuming Gates has a lot more disposable wealth than I do.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I say tax those rich pr*cks. I would rather tax them and if they hid their money in shell accounts I think we as a nation would find out which of the rich wasn’t playing fair. I’m the wrong person to ask anyway because I’m convinced the game is rigged and the poor and designed to stay at the bottom regardless of what any politician preaches.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Elizabeth Warren is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Shocked that billionaires don't want her to win!

SHOCKED

Warren won't implement this, it would eat into her own lobbying money because the rich are the ones who own her, the same rich people who got that permanent tax break not too long ago. If they had their way they'd choose Trump over Warren 100% of the time and even then it's assuming any politician actually believes what they say at all.

As far as I'm concerned most if not all high ranking politicians (regardless of the D or R beside their name) are bought and paid for by the same group of special interests. The special interests give the pawns their talking points and sit back to watch the chaos unfold.

The notion that people of vast individual wealth and influence are going to be outsmarted by a bunch of low level street goons(your average politician) is laughable.

They will take their toys(money) and leave. In fact I'd wager the vast majority would rather spend their wealth avoiding "giving" it to the government as opposed to just handing it over. I know I would. If you are going to make me broke, I'll do it on my terms.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think Warren is dead serious on wanting to implement her plan. I just don't think she can get it through Congress, if she's elected.

All that is needed to increase tax revenue is to tax wall street transactions

Tax the whole structure at 1 or 2% per transaction.

Sit back and watch enough money roll in to completely replace a countries infrastructure.

Other taxes just pale into insignificance.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
All that is needed to increase tax revenue is to tax wall street transactions

Tax the whole structure at 1 or 2% per transaction.

Sit back and watch enough money roll in to completely replace a countries infrastructure.

Other taxes just pale into insignificance.

P

Investors would just favor doing transactions on other market exchanges from other parts of the world. Sure, it still may bring money in, but I'm sure you'd see a decrease in money flow through the US stock exchanges.

Plenty of opportunities outside the NYSE and Nasdaq, money doesn't care where it has to go to get a return.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Time for a one world government.... no place for the rich to hide when we rise up and tax them ....


Or at least we might finally get full disclosure.

a reply to: MisterSpock

What if every country did the same!

You could almost eliminate other taxes.

Remember this, other countries are involved.

It would be an avalanche of 'me too' as every country came on board.

P

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Most of the people who will respond don't understand the difference between wealth and income. All they see is that someone has a ton of money and they believe they should take it from them.

Never mind that you could literally confiscate every dollar of all the billionaires in this country and it wouldn't even fund the government for a year.

We know wealth taxes don't work because it has been tried before and failed. But like all the people who favor socialism, they think their brand is the version that will work.

A good simple example of how wealth taxes don't work is PROPERTY TAXES. See the property taxes on your home are based on the value of your home, not how much money you make in income. Wealth vs Income. So if your home increases in value, your property taxes go up. The problem is as people stop working, change careers, retire, etc the value of their home may still be increasing, but their income is not. The end result is situations where you have retirees and others who may live in a house that might be worth $1 million if they sold it, but they cannot afford the annual property taxes on their retirement income.

As a result, they often have to sell the homes. Most jurisdictions recognize this problem and often have exemptions for elderly homeowners. However, most still wind up having to move. I know this is a huge problem in my community.

The taxes are paid with income, not wealth. The income is the money you make from your job. Your wealth is all your assets. The problem is wealth is not always liquid, so you can't access that money.

When you hear Bill Gates is worth $100 billion, it doesn't mean he has $100 billion at his disposal. It means all his equity in Microsoft and other investments IF HE SOLD EVERYTHING HE OWNED is worth about $100 billion based on the prevailing stock price of any given day. He may only have about $5-$10 billion liquid.

He can't liquidate huge amounts of his shares of Microsoft because it would tank the stock price.

The problem I have with folks like Warren is that they don't care about making the poor richer, but the rich poorer....

originally posted by: pheonix358
All that is needed to increase tax revenue is to tax wall street transactions

Tax the whole structure at 1 or 2% per transaction.

Sit back and watch enough money roll in to completely replace a countries infrastructure.

Other taxes just pale into insignificance.

P

You'd reduce the returns and hurt small investors. That 1 or 2% would kill the pension fund returns.... how you going to explain to Grandma that her pension benefits got cut because you wanted to tax those evil Wall Street traders?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Tim Pool completely destroyed Warren's wealth tax... he shows how her Billionaire calculator is wrong on her website. SHows she doesn't know difference between income and wealth.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Most of the people who will respond don't understand the difference between wealth and income. All they see is that someone has a ton of money and they believe they should take it from them.

Never mind that you could literally confiscate every dollar of all the billionaires in this country and it wouldn't even fund the government for a year.

We know wealth taxes don't work because it has been tried before and failed. But like all the people who favor socialism, they think their brand is the version that will work.

A good simple example of how wealth taxes don't work is PROPERTY TAXES. See the property taxes on your home are based on the value of your home, not how much money you make in income. Wealth vs Income. So if your home increases in value, your property taxes go up. The problem is as people stop working, change careers, retire, etc the value of their home may still be increasing, but their income is not. The end result is situations where you have retirees and others who may live in a house that might be worth $1 million if they sold it, but they cannot afford the annual property taxes on their retirement income.

As a result, they often have to sell the homes. Most jurisdictions recognize this problem and often have exemptions for elderly homeowners. However, most still wind up having to move. I know this is a huge problem in my community.

The taxes are paid with income, not wealth. The income is the money you make from your job. Your wealth is all your assets. The problem is wealth is not always liquid, so you can't access that money.

When you hear Bill Gates is worth $100 billion, it doesn't mean he has $100 billion at his disposal. It means all his equity in Microsoft and other investments IF HE SOLD EVERYTHING HE OWNED is worth about $100 billion based on the prevailing stock price of any given day. He may only have about $5-$10 billion liquid.

He can't liquidate huge amounts of his shares of Microsoft because it would tank the stock price.

The problem I have with folks like Warren is that they don't care about making the poor richer, but the rich poorer....

Maybe if the rich cared more about making the poor richer than they wouldn't have to worry about folks like Warren?

a reply to: Edumakated

Tim does a pretty good job in his videos. I don't agree with him on everything(actually more like 50 percent of the time) but he's genuine from what I can tell and FARRRRR more of a journalist than anyone on television.

I'll plug another guy that I think most people who follow tim would like(i've been seeing a lot more people putting tim's videos up).

Andrew, over at Don't Walk, Run!, usually does a fantastic job of putting forth the work(hard data, facts, logic) when he does a video. His videos on yangs rambling UBI nonsense are scathing. Makes me wonder how yang could even manage to balance a checkbook.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Many do care. You have no idea how much money people give away to various causes.

Look around your community. Hospitals. Parks. Universities. Schools. Shelters. Museums. All funded by wealthy philanthropist and other benefactors.

Bill Gates has made hundreds of thousands of millionaires. Has employed hundreds of thousands of people. He is worth $100 billion because he created a company that is damn near worth $1 trillion.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: Edumakated

Tim does a pretty good job in his videos. I don't agree with him on everything(actually more like 50 percent of the time) but he's genuine from what I can tell and FARRRRR more of a journalist than anyone on television.

I'll plug another guy that I think most people who follow tim would like(i've been seeing a lot more people putting tim's videos up).

Andrew, over at Don't Walk, Run!, usually does a fantastic job of putting forth the work(hard data, facts, logic) when he does a video. His videos on yangs rambling UBI nonsense are scathing. Makes me wonder how yang could even manage to balance a checkbook.

I don't agree with 100% either. Hell, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. However, he seems to be pretty genuine and fact based. I argue the facts, not the messenger...