The Rise Of Elizabeth Warren Worries US Billionaires

New York – The billionaires of the United States are increasingly restless before the rise in the presidential polls of Democrat Elizabeth Warren, whose spearhead is a tax with "potential to dramatically increase" the taxation 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 in assets but taxes fortunes by 2% annually. 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, spoke with some sneer about that measure despite having advocated in the past for greater taxation to billionaires, a change in attitude that has been seen among elite figures.


"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 The New York Times, where he urged not to "threaten" the "incentive system" of being rich.

According to the fiscal calculator that Warren offers on his campaign page, if the “ultra-rich” tax is applied to his fortune of $ 107,000 million, his contribution to the state is $ 6,379 million, far from the totality he commented, although the Tax reform proposed covers 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 and who could become his rival, since he considers running for the Democratic primary for the presidency of the country, to 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 as he put himself on the verge of tears for his concern for Warren, with which he maintains a tense rifirrafe and who in turn accused 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": on Thursday he bought advertising space on that economic channel and issued ads where he stated that Cooperman was charged with insider trading, as well as showing the nervousness of others for his fiscal policy.

The aforementioned, who paid almost $ 5 million after an agreement with the authorities, reacted by reiterating that a tax on the "ultra-rich" would lead to "unnatural acts, would 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 more taxes But he has 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 by the proposal of "Medicare for all", a public model that contemplates the suppression of private insurers and would benefit from the highest 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 he predicted that if Warren is elected president, the market will fall by 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 lower taxes than their secretaries. "

Saez explained to Efe that the US It had between the 30s and 70s "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 sharply cut the corporate tax in 2018.

"That is why in 2018, billionaires paid only 23% in taxes with respect to their total economic profits," says the economist, who still assures that "it is possible to design and apply taxes to the rich successfully, even in the world modern".

"The 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 "would triple the effective tax rate to the 400 richest over their total economic gain (from 23% in 2018 to 70%)," said Saez.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize in Economics, said in his NYT column that before the US he also "advanced without as many millionaires as now" and, although the country is not necessarily "ready" for Warren, Sanders or "Medicare for all", he considers "foolish" to think that he is "waiting" for a wealthy businessman like Bloomberg.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

69 − = 67