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.

Trump Predicts Supreme Court ‘Will Find a Way to Come to the Wrong Conclusion’ on Birthright Citizenship

Housekeeper expected to play key role in trial of wife accused of husband’s murder in wealthy ski town

How to Get a Birth Certificate for Dummies: A Guide for Democrats Who Oppose Secure Elections

Secret tapes sink shooter’s defense in Scott Spivey road rage killing

Angel Families praise Trump for immigration crackdown: ‘You are the man’

Trump halts Angel Families speech to check on woman in audience

Watch: CNN Host Goes Rogue on Air, Saying ‘Blue Cities Are Out of Control’ and Then Tearing Them Apart for 2 Minutes Straight

Watch: Media Melts Down After Kash Celebrates Team USA Win with a Chest Thump and Beer in His Hand – But He’s Not Backing Down

Kim Jong Un reelected as North Korean leader, teen daughter to serve as ‘missile chief’

Trump fires judge-picked US attorney as top DOJ official warns courts to stay in their lane

Reporter’s Notebook: Trump’s State of the Union becomes political boxing match as Democrats boycott

First antifa terrorism trial restarts following mistrial: What you need to know

Newsom’s office rebuffs ‘MAGA-manufactured outrage’ on his SAT score statement

Judge permanently blocks release of Trump classified documents report

JPMorgan Makes Humiliating Admission in Trump’s $5 Billion Debanking Lawsuit

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.