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 ally diGenova tapped to lead DOJ probe into Brennan over Russia probe origins

Texas AG Paxton Launches Probe Into Lululemon for Allegedly Exposing Customers to Harmful Chemicals in Clothing

This Airline Celebrated as an Unruly Passenger Was Put Behind Bars

Cold case breakthrough solves teen killing after suspect lived free for decades: ‘Better be afraid’

Hundreds of activists face pepper spray in violent clash with deputies at Wisconsin beagle research facility

Trump renews bridge, power plant threat against Iran in push for deal, mocks ‘tough guy’ IRGC

Voters Attack Back in Missouri: Council Members in Multiple Towns Electorally Whacked as Fed-Up Voters Send Blunt Message

Vance says he’s ‘grateful’ for Pope Leo’s statement on not wanting public debate with Trump

Trump’s Quick Reply to Joe Rogan’s Text Message Brought Him to the White House: ‘Do You Want FDA Approval?’

Transportation industry showers son-in-law of transportation secretary with cash to fuel congressional bid

Virginia could lose influence in Congress if Spanberger’s gerrymander passes

Illegal immigrant accused of attempted rape in Virginia had past charges dropped by Soros-backed prosecutor

Obama, Mamdani sing ‘Wheels on the Bus’ with Bronx kids during first joint appearance: video

NYC teen shot dead on Queens basketball court as bystanders filmed; police searching for gunman

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

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.