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.

Records: Anti-DEI Republican Helped Install Ideology at Texas Health Center

Dan Bongino Explains to ‘Full-Diaper Media Morons’ Difference Between Being Podcaster And FBI Deputy Director

World Health Organization says US withdrawal makes the nation and the world ‘less safe’

Grieving families of DC midair collision say more needs to be done to fix safety concerns one year after tragedy

Anti-ICE agitators clash with federal agents at Minneapolis hotel, as agents deploy tear gas, flashbangs

JD Vance shares ‘crazy’ story of ICE and CBP officers being mobbed in Minneapolis

Federal immigration officials privately fume over DHS claims after deadly Minnesota shooting

Trump confirms federal review of Minneapolis shooting that killed nurse: ‘Reviewing everything’

The far-left network that helped put Alex Pretti in harm’s way, then made him a martyr

Bill Clinton says Trump admin ‘told us not to believe what we’ve seen’ after latest Minnesota shooting

Video shows masked robbers crash car through jewelry store entrance, steal owner’s gun in brazen heist

Barack and Michelle Obama slam ICE after Minneapolis shooting, urge accountability

Tim Walz compares Minnesota ICE actions to Holocaust and Anne Frank: ‘Hiding in their houses’

ICE says violent mob helped criminal escape and left ICE agent permanently maimed

Iran may have killed over 30,000 protesters in two days: Report

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.