Elizabeth Warren Is Running Out of Fake Money to Pay for Her Terrible Ideas

Elizabeth Warren has finally finished spending all the fake money she intends to raise from her wealth tax, a policy that is unlikely to be enacted, and, were it somehow to become law, would almost certainly raise substantially less money than she claims.

The latest idea that Warren wants to finance with her wealth tax is an $800 billion plan to spend more on public schools, which includes grants for schools with low-income and disabled students, as well as $50 billion for school infrastructure. The plan follows a $1.25 trillion plan to make public college tuition free and cancel a substantial amount of student debt, as well as a $700 billion plan to fund child care.

(Warren previously wanted to pay for a $100 billion opioid plan, a $7 billion small business fund, and a $20 billion “election security” plan with the tax as well; she now says they will be paid for with additional taxation of inheritance. She’s not even the Democratic nominee, much less president, and already she is exhausting her supply of imaginary tax revenue.)

All together, the three education and childcare focused plans would cost about $2.75 trillion over a decade—precisely the amount that she says her wealth tax would raise.

That alone should raise suspicions, but in Warren’s telling, it all adds up perfectly. And in recent days, she has explicitly defended the tax on the grounds that the revenue math is solid. “Do the math. It clearly is enough. We have made very conservative estimates on the revenue. I have consulted with tax experts about it, with economists about it, and the money is there,” she said at a campaign rally yesterday.

Spanberger breaks silence on ‘sanctuary’ claims as ICE clashes heat up

Artemis II pilot Victor Glover’s daughter steals spotlight in viral tribute: ‘First daughter of the moon’

Yale Athletics Scandal: Admin Allegedly Forced Official to Retire to Make Room for Top Hire’s Lesbian Lover

Misconduct allegations dog Swalwell as Dem rivals seize opening in California governor’s race

Florida woman who posed as nurse and treated more than 4,400 patients without a license avoids jail time

Watch: Gov’t Exposed Spending £150k to Help 2 Foreign Child Molesters Fight Their Rap – We’re Committing Cultural Suicide

Democrats reject measure targeting dark money and AIPAC at spring meeting

Mamdani ripped after conceding key campaign pledge won’t happen this year

American Husband Arrested Days After His Wife Went Missing in the Bahamas

Netanyahu confirms negotiations with Lebanon after deadliest day of Israeli strikes

Putting Iran in Perspective: Have Americans Lost the Stomach to Fight Those Who Want Us Dead?

House Dem leaders open door to 25th Amendment after rank-and-file push for Trump’s removal

Rutte jokes about calling Trump ‘daddy’ rather than commenting on future of NATO

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche seeks death penalty for three MS-13 gang members

Rogue Dem bucks party on Trump war powers, calls Iran ‘47-year-old war crime’

Or maybe it isn’t. Since Warren first proposed her wealth tax, it has come under intense scrutiny for being unworkable, unpassable, and unrealistic in its revenue projections.

The first problem with using a wealth tax to finance Warren’s plans is political. Even with unified Democratic control of Congress, an unlikely proposition, it’s hard to imagine that a wealth tax would actually pass. The second problem is practical. It is quite difficult to calculate wealth, especially for the richest households, which tend to have obscure assets, as well as the resources to shield their fortunes from evaluation. Indeed, capital flight is one of the reasons why the large majority of developed economies that have adopted wealth taxes have also abandoned them. In a survey of economic experts conducted by Chicago Booth earlier this year, for example, 73 percent agreed Warren’s wealth tax would be “much more difficult to enforce than existing federal taxes” thanks to complications arising from valuation and tax evasion.

Meanwhile, Warren’s insistence that the math adds up ignores the very real academic debates over the source of her estimates. One study presented at the National Bureau of Economic Research this summer, for example, found that Warren’s numbers vastly over-estimate the amount of wealth that would be available to tax, suggesting that it would raise far less revenue than what she projects.

Warren’s underlying estimates come from Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the University of California at Berkeley, who for much of this year have been engaged in an extended argument with former Obama administration economic adviser Larry Summers, who has emerged as one of the more vocal critics of their work.