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.

Jerome Powell Now Considering Move to Spite Trump: Report

Iranian Economy on the Brink: US Blockade Leaves Country with Weeks of Oil Production Left

If You’ve Ever Thought Life Is Too Painful to Be Worth Living, This Piece Might Just Change Everything

Shouting match erupts between RFK Jr and Dem lawmaker over his comments about Black children

Hillary Clinton rips Trump on migrant child detentions, but Bill Clinton’s own record cuts deep

10 House Republicans Side with Democrats in Bid to Block Trump from Deporting Haitian Immigrants

Chuck Grassley, the longest-serving senator, hints at a ninth term

Federal agency approves Trump’s plan for triumphal arch ahead of America 250

FBI has received DNA data from Nancy Guthrie case: sources

Sailors injured after fire breaks out on aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower during shipyard maintenance

Missing general, scientist deaths tied to secret US work prompt White House probe

Illegal aliens are getting taxpayer-funded boob jobs and sex change ops in Newsom’s California, watchdog says

Eleven House Republicans vote to rebuke Trump and protect 350,000 Haitian migrants

US Warns it Will ‘Actively Pursue’ Any Vessels Attempting to Aid Iran Outside of the Middle East

Ted Cruz Rips Tucker Carlson Over His ‘Muslims Love Jesus’ Claim: ‘Deranged, Leftist Psycho’

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.