Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), President of the United States with hope in 2020, spoke during the "We, the People" Summit at the Warner Theater on April 1, 2019, in Washington, DC .
Brendan Smalowski | AFP | Getty Images
A Wall Street economist on Monday alerted customers to tax proposals touted by Democratic presidential hope sensor. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Saying investors should have "something to worry about."
Between the Sanders plan, which is "designed to" tax and destroy "the big net wealth, "and Warren's overestimation of potential revenue streams to fund her political goals, policies, should both unpleasantly inspire" from different angles, "writes Philip Carlson-Szlezak, chief U.S. economist at AB Bernstein.
It's important for voters to differentiate each candidate's proposals, the economist added, because while Sanders thinks the US shouldn't have billionaires, Warren's plan views the state of the ultra-conscientious as something that should be skimmed, but ultimately account to keep.
"The wealth tax proposals of presidential candidates Sanders and Warren offer fundamentally different political choices with different s importance for tax burden, wealth retention, and implicit wealth restrictions in America," the economist notes.
"The political goal of the Sanders wealth tax is to eliminate the billionaire long-term ranking and significantly reduce it in the medium term," Carlson-Schlesack added. "The political goal Warren's Wealth Tax is to raise revenue to fund additional spending programs, which is reflected in Warren's Wealth Tax Schedule, which impedes wealth growth but allows most property sizes to continue or slowly increase . "
Carlsson-Szlezak listed several concerns expressed by voters and whether he believed the concerns were valid or unjustified.
- Personal tax burden: The majority of Americans are allowed to lend themselves to this issue, since neither Warren's plan nor Sanders' concerns households with a net worth of less than $ 32 million.
- Wealth Conservation: Voters have the right to worry about their ability to retain (or cultivate) their wealth over time, especially under Sanders' plan, which is intended to provide a half-life of about 35 years to a state of $ 5 billion. Warren's plan for "hair removal but preservation" would allow modest growth.
- Wealth Drop: Even more troubled by Sanders, whose plan calls for a long-term $ 700 million wealth reduction; Warren's plan involves limiting the wealth of $ 5.5 billion in the very long term.
- Fiscal Deficit and Program Financing: The plans formulated by the two candidates should not alleviate the concerns about the deficit, as the wealth tax will likely have to go "much further" down the wealth distribution, for to make a significant impact. Both plans probably overestimate the revenue potential as they underestimate legal avoidance.
The Bernstein economist actually repelled some of Wall Street's more apocalyptic concerns, saying that the arguments for the collapse of asset prices, lower capital formation, and the emasculation of American capitalism are "vague." "
" Removing an "unlimited number up" sounds un-American, but we tend to believe that today's college dormitory occupants will not be discouraged from taking an entrepreneurial risk with a wealth tax, "he writes.