She should’ve really thought this one through…
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released her plan to fund Medicare for All this week, insisting that her plan would not raise taxes on Americans of the middle class.
CBS reporter Zak Hudak asked Warren what income bracket she used to define the “middle class.” Warren’s initial response didn’t quite make any sense, as she claimed: “Here’s 100%.”
“It doesn’t raise taxes on anybody but billionaires, and, you know what, the billionaires can afford it and I don’t call them middle class.”
Hudak continued his question by asking, “So, anyone under $1 billion net worth…”
“That’s right – is not paying a penny more,” Warren added. “That’s exactly right.”
Hudak’s tweet thread on the issue mentioned the communication director of Warren, Kristen Orthman, saying that Warren “was referencing the wealth tax, which is only on billionaires.” Hudak continued on saying that Orthman “acknowledges the capital gains tax would affect non-billionaires, but only the top 1%.”
Josh Jamerson, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, tried to get Warren to clarify by asking: “Is there a salary or income you would define as middle class if you say ‘ no middle class taxes? ”
Warren answered: “Sure. For Medicare for All, it’s a billion dollars.”
“I mean, everyone understands this,” Warren told Jamerson. “This is no increase in taxes for anyone except billionaires. Period. Done. This is about access to health care for everyone. This is about taking that $11 trillion that families will be reaching in their pockets to pay over the next 10 years and bringing it down to zero and funding it by increasing taxes on billionaires and giant corporations. That’s the whole thing – and the other pieces all just stay where they are. The federal government keeps contributing, state governments keep contributing and employers keep contributing as they’re doing right now. It builds on what we’ve already put into Obamacare. And just says ‘but we can do better for American families.’”
In what she said, Warren will have to explain a bit. For example, she mixed up getting a net worth of billions of dollars with a $1 billion salary or profit. There’s a different net worth and wage. Billionaires are not making a billion dollars a year in this state.
For example, the net worth of Mark Zuckerberg is more than $70 billion, but Facebook’s annual salary is $1. According to Verdict, his base salary in 2013 was $500,000. The pay of Zuckerberg is in line with some other tech CEOs, including Larry Page of Alphabet and Jack Dorsey of Twitter. As recorded by Verdict, Apple’s Tim Cook was the CEO with the highest salary at $3 million. Snap Inc’s Evan Spiegel, the CEO who made the most in 2017, gained $637.7 million – still below Warren’s billion-dollar mark.
Salary.com reports Zuckerberg did not earn anything from stock and options or bonuses, but received an “other” salary of $22.5 million. That revenue is related to personal safety and travel expenses incurred in 2018, CNN reported. Yeah, it seems huge, but we just can’t understand the level of security that demands someone like Zuckerberg.
She should, of course, apply to net worth. It should be remembered that, since Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) became one due to book sales, “millionaires” have largely vanished from the tax-hike promises.
Even with the net worth / salary issue aside, Warren’s argument that it is impossible to raise taxes on anyone but billionaires.
Rival candidate Joe Biden’s campaign pointed this out in a statement that Warren’s proposal “would create a new new tax on employers of almost $9 trillion that would come out of workers’ pockets, a new financial transaction tax that would impact investments held by middle class Americans, and a new capital gains tax that would affect far more people than she stated tonight.”
In conclusion, Warren’s statement that state government donations are not true. A review of her proposal by the New York Times makes a statement that “States and local governments would be required to make payments to the federal government, similar to what they currently spend on government employee benefits and their share of Medicaid expenses.” Warren claims this would allow a $6.1 trillion increase.
This proposal is probably not even constitutional, but it is indicative of Warren’s mental gymnastics and her campaign has to be carried out to claim that her single-payer health care plan is not going to be an economic disaster for the middle