Listen: Government, Senator Elizabeth Warren And United States discussed on Phil Valentine
"Show. Six one five seven three seven nine nine eight six seven three seven. WTN Hadley he manning policy director. I w f independent women's forum here to chat with us about how the Warren Cortez wealth taxes, what undermine the booming economy. If in fact, they ever get through Hanley how are you? Hi, I'm doing. Well. Thanks for having me on the show. It is my pleasure. They're talking about the tippy tops. Now, aren't they? I mean, and so now there's the old adage if you rob Peter to pay Paul you never get an argument from Paul. There are a lot of folks out there that don't have any problem with this because it doesn't affect them. Right. Well, are so they think, you know, I think any facts certainly relevant how the government secures its revenues we want. I think anybody who's a worker consumer and the American economy, we want the government to get the revenues that it needs to performance basic function in the least destructive way possible. And I don't think that putting really oppressive tax rates on the tippy top is gonna benefit people who aren't in the tippy top either. And it's worth clarifying. So Representative Alexandra Cortez has her plan. Which is she says she consider seventy percent. Cent tax rate on the income of people in the in the very tippy top. She calls them or the top one percent of earners while Senator Elizabeth Warren has a different plan. Her plan would be an asset tax. So she would look at people who or households I should say who have more than fifty million dollars in assets. And then she would say the government's gonna take a chunk of that a much smaller percentage than what the congresswoman is proposing. But still, you know, this is a sort of the government getting into a new style of taxation that is to take from what people already have rather than what they're currently earning. But how are they gonna know? What answer I mean? Like right now, I don't even know my assets are, but I mean, so we have to now figure out how much we got new farm equipment houses and things like this. And then they come in and take a chunk of it. That's ridiculous. Right. Well, the the idea is that it would be considering the net worth of the entire person. And so I don't know what metrics they were years to determine that. But I honestly think that the use of fills both of them both of the policy ideas anyway are not so much about public policy, but they're really more about political messaging consider that Democrats today, they can fill the house of representatives. But the Senate still consult by Republicans and the White House, of course, occupied by President Trump and Republican party at least, President Trump and the Senate majority as of right now have demonstrated that their direction in terms of of tax reform, or at least a fourth in the tax cuts and jobs act as twenty seventeen is a very different direction. You know, this was a law that cut taxes not just for people for people at all income levels. And I don't think there's going to be a lot of action on this idea that we should be punishing some of the most financially successful. People in America. I think this is really just about Democrats trying to send a message to their voter base that they believe in, you know, sharing the wealth, that's sort of their their economic message that they think that, you know, there's there's a wildly gap. Between Americans have a lot Americans have a little, and they don't think that's right. And this is their plan to address that. So they don't really expect to address it though. I mean, because they don't they only have the house, but it is dangerous and they've twenty twenty comes around the Democrats take the White House. And for some reason take the Senate, then all of this stuff could come to fruition. We could have the the green new deal. We can have all the rest of this crazy stuff. Right. I mean, I'm not sure how many even within the Democratic Party would subscribe to this, you know, full on left wing agenda that we think representatives Alexandria Acadia Cortes. However, I do think there's another danger. I mean, there's something to talk about in public policy in terms of the Overton window or what policies are. Palatable to the public, and I think by talking about policy now, especially if people on the right don't respond and explain why, you know, taxing the tippy top of American earners and network holders is not the right way forward than what we have. Instead is these ideas fueling a mentality of class warfare. Or a depiction of the American economy has some game where the people who have the most, you know, the implication is that because they have a lot or or they have a lot because other people have a little it's like they've taken it, or if they've stolen it or, you know, as President Obama famously said, you didn't build that the implication is that people who are successful didn't earn it. And therefore, it is acceptable for the government to take big chunks back. So not even a lot of the Democrats are going to go for this. But it is. I mean, this is how left is the democrat party is gone. I mean, this is this is stuff that he used to say behind closed doors. They would never tell him what they wanted to do when they actually got into power. Now, it's part of their. Policy. By by putting this out there. They're moving the center. So they say, you know, we want to seventy percent tax rate. Maybe that's beyond the pale. Maybe the rest of congress wouldn't go for it. But I think it makes it easier for the moderately liberal democratic congressman or Senator say, but you know, I would support a fifty percent tax rate. It'd make you look bad by comparison move in that direction. Exactly. All right. So which do you think is worse though. I mean what Alexandra Cossio Cortez's come out with or Elizabeth Warren? Well, I think you know, certainly anytime we talk about taxing income in the United States federal government, certainly most of the revenues come from income taxes. That's what vendor Arcadia Cortes recommending a higher income tax rate on the highest earners anytime. We talk about the income tax. We have to recognize as I believe president. Reagan said something like if you want more of something subsidize it, and if you want less of something tax it when you. Tax income. You're sending a message. You're discouraging people from productivity you're discouraging people from earning more, certainly if I were one of the highest earning American, and I knew that my next dollar that I earned was going to be taxed at a rate of seventy percent. Well, it's certainly discouraging to me in terms of how hard I want to work for that next dollar and history shows that some of the highest earners are actually very good at manipulating their income to avoid, you know, the highest possible tax burden or in some cases, people just go to other countries. That's more of a risk. I think actually with the wealth tax proposed by Senator Warren because other countries many in the OCD many in western Europe has experimented with a wealth tax and they're actually walking back from that. Now because what they discovered is that when you tax the highest networks individuals, those are highly mobile people, and they can move from one country to another and they take their wealth with them. And it's not to say that we're gonna miss out on. You know, a few extra yachts or a few extra, you know, high in pump people, but we're missing out on all that their wealth has to offer for our economy and their investments in their businesses and their charitable contributions. We certainly don't want to be in the business of telling those people to take a hike. No, we don't. I mean Francis seeing this Gerard Depardieu. I believe was one of the more high profile folks and said they going to Russia where it's a more tax relief climate, and they look around they start losing money left. And right here, we did this in the United States with the luxury tax back in the nineties, and it just almost Well, I I say almost it did put the yacht building business in this country out of business because people could go by dot yacht offshore and then just say look back here. You know? And I think there is sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of some of our various experiments with different tax policy in the United States when congresswoman Acadia Cortes debuted this idea of a seventy percent tax rate on high earners. She talked about how the United States had previously had very high tax rates. Well, that's maybe true. If you look only at the marginal tax rate, the official tax rate on paper. But if you look at what people actually pay effective tax rates. They were nowhere close to that high. There were certain nowhere close to what they look like on paper because our tax code also used to have a lot more right off than a lot more deductions, and I give credit to the tax cuts and jobs act for trying to streamline our tax code. This is you know, people are filing now for twenty eighteen the first time this laws in effect. But if we're not gonna have so many deductions and loopholes and complexities in our tax code. Then we also ought to have a broad base. Decreasing. Of the overall tax rate, and I think that's more efficient. But it's also more fair. It's less distortive, and it would be wrong at a time when we're trying to limit so many of the the deductions and loopholes in the tax code to also raise the highest rate. That's that's not gonna do what the congresswoman hoping it's not going to raise the revenue that she wants. And it's not going to be helpful for our economic growth as well. Heavily Manning's policy director. I w f independent women's forum. We have a link at philvalentine dot com under show prep Hadley very much. Thanks for having me. All right. My pleasure. You know, we were talking about taxes. I've just started on my actually usually have one appointment with the accountant, but this time of wedded to to because some of the documents were yet they weren't in yet. And so I looked at the preliminary game a preliminary view of what is looking like, I'm paying a lot more in taxes on a Trump than I was before. And that's the way it's going to be. I'm not complaining about it. Because I think that he's done the right thing. But here's some of the things that I've discovered that my situation that a lot of people, especially you folks, that they're like like a business expenses, for instance. If I paid to go to and I got a check probably I don't know whether had any trips this year, I have business trips that are right off my businesses that I have on the side. But let's say I'll go to the inauguration to cover the inauguration for the radio station. Let's just say the radio station does not pay for that. And I pay for myself. Used to. I could write that off. Right. That often more can't write off lunches for clients. Can't write off any in the only if you are filing a on a skit, I guess his schedule. That's true. But anyway, basically in my situation, my radio my radio career paid on a salary. I can't write anything often anymore. So that that sort of changes my behavior. To a certain degree as they said are people that now are redoing their structure their pay structure where they were their employer because the employer was paying them enough to where they could just, you know, pay for you gotta go and distribute. So just pay them, you know, but you can't do that. Now, you need to get the company to reimburse you for the thing, and that's at, but if you don't your SOL, and I'm not saying that that's necessarily bad thing. But people that are talking about the Trump Trump just helping all these people in it ain't helping me I'm going to tell you that. And but I'm not complaining about it. I'm just telling you what the what the truth of it is right now. I'll know when I get more out. I'm not gonna give you all the details. But naturally, but I think it's it's looking like it's not gonna be nearly as good for me as it was before the Trump tax. They've come into full effect over this last year. So this notion that. You all the very rich or getting a tax cut in the rest of this. None of this is true. What this was was a realignment of the tax structure to make it more fair across the board. And some folks gonna find well, this hurts me this hurts me because I imagine like people that are working here.."