TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Friday, February 8, 2019

More Reactions To The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez And Elizabeth Warren Tax Plans

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2019/02/more-reactions-to-the-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-elizabeth-warren-tax-plans.html

Tax | Permalink

Comments

The former will be primaried and relegated back to obscurity.

The latter didn’t earn her career and no longer has any legitimacy.

Why must I continue to be shown stories trying to prop them up?

Posted by: Anon | Feb 8, 2019 7:42:44 AM

This from the Bloomberg piece "The Best Way to Tax Wealth..."

"A theoretical case, based on restrictive assumptions, can be made for not taxing capital at all — but as a practical matter, on grounds of fairness and efficiency, it’s hard to deny that wealth and the income it generates are undertaxed in the U.S. relative to income from labor. The question is whether a wealth tax like the one Warren is suggesting is a better remedy for these defects than fixing the taxes the U.S. already has — say, by taxing capital income at the same rate as labor income, taxing unrealized capital gains at death, and/or making the inheritance tax harder to avoid."

How about that as a trifecta for progressive taxation? Of course nothing has happened yet, and likely won't while the GOP controls the Senate. Even so...

Posted by: Gerald Scorse | Feb 8, 2019 8:17:54 AM

Dear Anon:

"The former will be primaried and relegated back to obscurity." Ah yes, you're a fortune teller.
"The latter didn’t earn her career and no longer has any legitimacy." False; she's nothing like Donald Trump.
"Why must I continue to be shown stories trying to prop them up?" You don't like them? Exercise your freedom of choice and go elsewhere.

Posted by: Gerald Scorse | Feb 9, 2019 12:43:14 PM

Mr. Scorse, as a confessed progressive, if I recall correctly, you might find this surprising, but as a hard-core libertarian, I partially agree with you. Removing the capital gains differential would have the greatest simplifying effect on the tax code than any other single measure. The amount of time spent arbitraging capital gains versus ordinary losses is beyond belief. So yes, income is income and losses are losses. If you couple this with a revenue neutral tax rate, the elimination of this tax wedge would be a huge step toward a workable tax system.

However, we disagree on death taxes. Let's just do away with them and the step up in basis. My guess is we would see a net gain in tax revenue.

Posted by: Dale Spradling | Feb 9, 2019 2:07:37 PM

To Dale Spradling: Delighted to hear we share common ground on eliminating tax-advantaged capital gains. If I'm reading correctly, we also agree on doing likewise with the stepped-up basis. As for estate taxes per se, the exemption that Sanders is now suggesting ($3.5 million for singles, $7 million for couples) seems reasonable to me. I'm curious: since that exemption would leave very few people to pay any estate tax at all, how come you're against it?

Posted by: Gerald Scorse | Feb 10, 2019 5:52:25 AM

Dear Mr. Scorse,

1. Yes
2. No. Houston undergrad plus Rutgers Law does not a Harvard Law professor make. Must add an extra ingredient to make the equation work out. Or just lie about it. That worked, too.
3. At the margins, I do. It’s more in the nature of a request.

Posted by: Anon | Feb 10, 2019 3:00:26 PM

"2. No. Houston undergrad plus Rutgers Law does not a Harvard Law professor make. Must add an extra ingredient to make the equation work out. Or just lie about it. That worked, too."

Your *theory,* such as it is, has been thoroughly debunked by the Boston Globe's investigators. But maybe you want to look at how Jared Kushner got in Harvard, eh?

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Feb 10, 2019 6:42:27 PM

Dear Anon:

1. Is that on your CV?
2. Better yet, lie about everything. It's worked (so far) for DJT.
3. Happy to hear it's not an order.
:)

Posted by: Gerald Scorse | Feb 11, 2019 6:00:47 AM

I don't really get this blindness, Mr. Scorse & Unemployed Northeastern. With something this obvious, the wilfulness of your blindness is truly remarkable, but I suppose not uncommon on your side of the aisle.

Yes, clearly Jared got in because his father bought his admission.

Just as clearly, Warren would not have gotten a sniff from Pennsylvania or Harvard without her lying about her race. This is not really that difficult.

Do you want to prove me wrong?

Go look at the Harvard Law faculty profiles and post me a link to modern-day Elizabeth Warren who's on the faculty and attended the rough equivalent of Rutgers for law school.

Please report back -- I did the A and B last names and stopped. Didn't want to keep wasting my time.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Anon | Feb 11, 2019 9:15:00 PM

Post a comment