The billionaires of the United States are increasingly restless before the rise in the presidential polls of Democrat Elizabeth Warren, whose spearhead is a rate with "potential to dramatically increase" the imposition on their total earnings, according to experts.
Senator Warren, the candidate with the most support for her party's candidacy in the 2020 elections, proposes a "ultra-rich" tax that exempts the first 50 million dollars in assets from being taxed, but taxes 2% per year. fortunes above that figure and 6% more than 1,000 million, as recently revealed.
This week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, a regular in the "top 3" of the richest in the world and today focused on philanthropy, pronounced with some sneer about that measure despite having advocated in the past for a greater tax imposition to the billionaires, a change in attitude that has been seen among some lite figures.RELATED
"I have paid about 10,000 million dollars, more than anyone, in taxes. If I have to pay 20,000 million, that's fine. But if you say I pay 100,000 million, I will have to calculate what I have left," he said, "joking" at a conference New York Times, where he urges not to "threaten" the "incentive system" of being rich.
According to the fiscal calculator that Warren offers in his campaign page, if the tax for the "ultra-rich" is applied to his fortune of 107,000 million dollars, his contribution to the State is 6,379 million, far from the total that he commented, although the tax reform that it proposes includes other increases for the most prosperous.
The senator gives the example of this calculation for Gates and also for Michael Bloomberg, an entrepreneur and philanthropist who has amassed 52,000 million dollars and who could become his rival, since he considers presenting himself to the Democratic primary with the sights set on the Presidency of the country, to the relief of "0.1%" of society.
According to Recode, it was Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the richest man on the planet, who encouraged Bloomberg to consider the candidacy and since they transcended their intentions, the support of other billionaires has already been won, such as the fund manager Leon Cooperman
Cooperman starred in a resounding CNBC interview in which he put himself on the verge of tears for his concern for Warren, with which he maintains a tense rifirrafe and who in turn accuses him of having investments in a student loan firm, a problem that the senator wants to stop.
Warren harasses the big businessmen even "at home": this Thursday he bought advertising space on that economic channel and issued announcements where he stated that Cooperman was charged with insider trading, in addition to showing the nervousness of others for his fiscal policy.
The aforementioned, who paid almost 5 million dollars after an agreement with the authorities, reacts by reiterating that a tax on the "ultra-rich" will lead to "unnatural acts, will be almost impossible to control and is probably unconstitutional."
Another of those mentioned was Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who lashed out at the "demonization" of millionaires, just like Jamie Dimon, top manager of JPMorgan Chase, who in the past has shown himself in favor of paying taxes taller, but recently criticized that Warren uses "very hard words."
The concern about the rise of the senator in the polls – in some of them already exceeds former Vice President Joe Biden – extends to Wall Street, where investors calculate the impact that their potential government can have as opposed to Trump's, generally seen as a Spur for the markets.
The analysis firm Jefferies explained that Warren "could be the Democratic candidate, and that scares" especially the health sector because of the proposal of "Medicare for all", a public model that contemplates the suppression of private insurers and will benefit from the largest tax collection.
For analyst Jared Holz, Bloomberg's "potential entry" into the presidential race is important for that sector, "which has absorbed Warren's negativity," but admits that Wall Street is acting "as if the elections were this month."
Among the most worried, Cooperman again: last month predicted that if Warren is elected president, the market will fall 25% or "not open", although on another occasion it was more direct: "I believe in a progressive tax and that the rich pay more, but you are shitting in the fucking American dream. "
Economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, from the University of Berkeley (California), authors of the book "The Triumph of Injustice" and Warren's advisors, point out that "billionaires pay for the first time in a century taxes lower than their secretaries. "
Saez explained that the US between the 30s and 70s it was "the most progressive tax system of all advanced economies" and attributed the current situation to the reforms of administrations such as those of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, which cut the corporate tax strongly in 2018.
"That is why in 2018, billionaires paid only 23% in taxes with respect to their total economic gains," says the economist, who still says that "it is possible to design and apply taxes to the rich successfully, even in the world modern".
"Billionaires and Wall Street are getting more and more nervous because they understand that a progressive tax on wealth has the potential to dramatically increase their tax burden," since it goes "directly" to any form of wealth: business, property, stocks or bonds.
"They do not fear increases in individual income taxes because (…) they can avoid them by making money through companies"; on the other hand, the Warren or Sanders measures "will triple the effective tax rate to the 400 richest on their total economic gain (from 23% in 2018 to 70%)," said Saez.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize for Economa, said in his NYT column that before the US He also "advanced without as many millionaires as he does now" and, although the country is not necessarily "ready" for Warren, Sanders or "Medicare for all," he considers it "foolish" to think that he is "waiting" for a rich businessman like Bloomberg.