McArdle: What good is Warren’s plan to tax the wealthy?

Her tax proposal is a lousy way to raise revenue but a good way to raise her 2020 profile.

By Megan McArdle

The Washington Post

There are three things to note about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax. The first is that it won’t do what she promises. The second is that it won’t happen. And the third is that both of those cavils are almost beside the point.

The Massachusetts Democrat wants to tax fortunes greater than $50 million at a rate of 2 percent of assets a year, with billionaires kicking in an additional 1 percent. Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman estimate that the tax would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years, all from people most voters don’t like very well.

The plan is less realistic than wishful. Saez and Zucman assume perfect implementation, with no broad exemptions that would enable ultrarich people, and their squads of tax attorneys, to structure their wealth around the tax. After a few rounds of legislative horse-trading, any real-world bill would be much more complex than the Warren camp envisions and thus easier to avoid. Which is why most countries have decided to avoid the bother.

Consumption taxes such as sales or value-added taxes are easy to administer and raise lots of revenue. Income taxes are trickier but still simple compared with taxing wealth. Most people regularly receive payments that are easy to track and can be valued at … the sum of the payments. But what is the value of a business with one shareholder? A large piece of timberland that hasn’t been sold for 50 years? An irreplaceable antique or artwork?

Taxing those things means creating a lot of administrative capacity to track and price the assets, with the wealthy and their lawyers fighting every step of the way. That’s one reason wealth taxes, once popular among Western nations, are trending toward extinction; the paltry revenue wasn’t worth the administrative headache. Nor the capital flight and slower rate of capital formation such taxes tend to induce.

Those problems would be particularly acute with Warren’s plan because she has targeted the very wealthy rather than the merely affluent. Doing so mitigates the inevitable wailing about family-owned farms, as well as some of the pressure to lard the tax with those revenue-depleting exemptions. But taxing only the super-rich means taxing people with a lot of unique, hard-to-value assets, and who can confound auditors by shifting their wealth into even more of those assets.

And these are the minor problems with the Warren plan. The big problem is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which forbids “direct taxes” on people or property unless they’re “apportioned,” doled out among the states by population.

Instituting an income tax required a constitutional amendment to override that clause, and Warren’s plan might well require another. Warren’s team, and many other progressives, have offered ingenious arguments for the plan’s constitutionality. Probably not clever enough, however, to sway a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

But one suspects that feasibility isn’t the goal here. It’s of a piece with the Republicans who kept promising to “repeal and replace” Obamacare without bothering to game out the “replace” part. Also of a piece with the progressive penchant for ever-larger spending plans based on ever-more-fanciful math. All are symptoms of Congress’ growing inability to legislate.

If you can’t do anything anyway, then why not make your presidential promises really amazing, rather than tepidly realistic? If the plans die in committee, voters may never find out the truth; better yet, they may blame the opposition rather than your excessively vibrant fantasy life.

Political theater has always been a key part of lawmaking, but now that Congress has given up on lawmaking, it’s all we have left. Fiery monologues … wild applause from fans … impassioned booing from the peanut gallery … then bring down the curtain and start getting ready for the next performance.

It’s troubling that Warren is reviving a dusty old policy idea that has failed almost everywhere it has been tried. But it’s much more troubling that she has decided to focus her agenda on a proposal that almost certainly cannot be implemented without getting three-quarters of the states to vote for a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court that skews to the left. Offering policies that can’t possibly be implemented as described, even if all the political winds line up just right, was supposed to be a Trumpian trait. More and more, it’s becoming business as usual.

It’s no way to run a government, but in the current climate, it is, sadly, a pretty good way to run a presidential campaign.

Megan McArdle is a Washington Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter @asymmetricinfo.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, March 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Pallet, CEO, Amy King Thursday afternoon at Pallet in Everett on January 21, 2020. (Kevin Clark/The Herald)
Editorial: Everett should wait on ‘no-sit, no-lie’ ordinance

With a shelter project just months away, the threat of fines and jail seem ill-timed and inhumane.

Two copies of the Dr. Seuss children's' book “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” are displayed at the Lackawanna County Children's Library collection in Scranton, Pa., Tuesday, March 2, 2021, show changes between editions. An earlier 1964 edition features a character described as "a Chinese boy" with yellow skin and a long ponytail, while a 1984 edition changes the character to "a Chinese man" and removes the skintone and ponytail. Six Dr. Seuss books — including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” — will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author's legacy said Tuesday.
 (Christopher Dolan/The Times-Tribune via AP)
Comment: To Think That We Accepted Racist Images in Kid’s Lit

Pulling a few Dr. Seuss books from print does not cancel his work; it does improve what kids will read.

Comment: What’s missing from Biden’s plans to bolster the ACA

Biden’s plan to expand health coverage is good. But we also need to fix stingy insurance plans.

Saunders: Now seems like good time to step back, take a break

Capping 30 years in journalism and the Trump thrill ride, I’m taking some time to consider what’s next.

Sheriff’s rehiring of deputies warrants recall

The deadline is rapidly approaching for completion of signature gathering in the… Continue reading

Restore Endangered Species Act protection for gray wolf

During the 19th and 20th centuries, hunting, trapping, and habitat loss drove… Continue reading

March 7, 2021: Unwanted advance
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, March 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A magazine ad from the 1930s uses an illustration of a physician who recommends Lucky Strike cigarettes as "less irritating."
Editorial: Reject Big Tobacco’s plea to clear nicotine’s name

Altria wants the FDA to help it promote new products as ‘healthier’ alternatives to smoking.

Most Read