......Warren/Harris or Harris/Warren in 2020. But I know it's too much ot ask.

But I'm not sure it's a winning ticket. I would prefer someone who can pull in some independent voters. Warren and Harris are both from deep blue states. I think Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar comebined with someone further left like Harris, Warren or even Sanders could be a winner. What I DO NOT want is 2 old white men (and I'm an old white woman).

I am getting so sick and tired of listening to the 1%-ers whining about how they pay too much in taxes (and the GOP feeling so sorry for them).

That small amount proposed by Liz Warren wouldn't even be missed by most of them.

"Billionaires" like Trump.

But I would love to hear an uber wealthy person's argument against this, when faced with the fact that we have millions living in poverty, millions more living paycheck to paycheck, millions still without health insurance, our infrastructure crumbling on top of us, etc. To those people who say the uber wealthy will start leaving the US, I say LET THEM. Most aren't pulling their weight anyway.

It's about time we did this.

Can spend $27K every day for 100 years and still not go broke. Wrap your head around that for a minute.

adulation and attention they receive from people who work for them.

They hoard money rather than sharing their wealth, whether it's paying their employees well, spending it or even donating it to good causes. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is twrrible for the economy as a whole. That's why high taxes for the very wealthy make good economic sense.

Individuals with too much wealth, Corporations too big to fail, autocratic gov't who do not care about ordinary folks...all no good.

in 3...2...1...



I listen to a financial squawk and they covered this story. Hahahahaha any idea to slow the looting freaks 'em all out. Senator Warren has 'em running scared.

Give a diuretic tax Warren. Get that trickle started!

not many super-rich will part with their money.

By the time the lobbyists get done, I’m more than half afraid that we’ll have a tax that hits middle-class retirement savings while billionaires get convenient loopholes.

2%?

Start it at 5% and make it a sliding scale so the richest pay even more.

to them down the road could very well make what happened during the French Revolution look like a tea party in comparison.

People who are billionaires on paper due to excessive debt will be forced to get their finances into the black. This can only benefit the strength of the country's economy.

That's wealth, not income.

And debt would probably reduce assets, like expenses reduce income.

It's actual redistribution.

I've never actually understood why Democrats were big proponents of high income tax -- really rich people don't have income.

Rockerfeller (the original) liked the income tax as (and this is pretty much a direct quote) "it will keep the Jews and the Irish out of the country club."

And it's true. The people who pay the bulk of the income tax are upper middle class.

2% doesn't sound like much, but since it is taxed each and every year, it will begin to have a real impact.

in 10 years, it will equal 20%, in 20 years, 40% of all assets including houses, stock ownings, and retirement holdings.

than 2%, then will still be wealthier every year. For example, the wealth of the Forbes 400 went up 18% in 2018. So a 2% hit every year is modest.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#75018bf8251c

for a portfolio of that size is 7 percent or more a year. A 2% tax will only slow the growth of wealth, even 3 percent will not stall the growth of wealth. I am a trustee for a charitable endowment that has a relatively small pile of cash compared to this. We can give 4% away every year literally forever, and the 4% will only get bigger over time. The larger Charitable Foundations, established under current tax law, are required to give 5% away every year, and should be able to do that forever.

My point is that 2% is a nice pile of $, the tax will help and should be done, but a solution to wealth disparity it is not.

Over the last 20 tears it has averaged about 2% per year. This would reduce the return to 5%. Another 2% would give a real return of 3%. It is proably not going to have a great impact on the very rich. If you are worth one billion you would have to pay 20 million, less than the price of a private jet. I think it would be great for the treasury. The details are going to get pretty strange, but then most financial things get complicated.

against MORONS who think this will hurt them when they are rich.

This could impact the Gini coefficient (see https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/usa/), which is a measure of economic polarization in society. I could see this reducing polarization so to levels more comparable to the 1950-1980 time period.

Who the heck needs $10,000 000 ??

it won't affect him because we know he's been lying about his income for years.