Warren Slams Economists Who Criticize Her Wealth Tax

“You leave two cents with the billionaires, they’re not eating more pizzas.”

Scott Varley/Orange County Register/Zuma

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earned huge applause at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate by challenging a fundamental economic assumption.

A central component of Warren’s campaign involves a two-cent tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million. Many economists have said that such a large tax increase could slow economic growth, notwithstanding the shining example of the equalizing potential of taxation: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1935 Wealth Tax, which helped mitigate income inequality and pull the country out of the Great Depression.

“How do you answer top economists who say taxes of this magnitude would stifle growth and investment?” moderator Judy Woodruff asked.

“Oh, they’re just wrong,” Warren replied, as the audience burst into cheers.

“For two cents, what can we do?” she continued. “We can provide universal childcare, early childhood education for every baby in this country age zero to five, universal pre-k for every three-year-old to four-year-old, and raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher.”

She also said that we could improve our public schools and cancel student debt. Then she challenged the disputed notion in trickle-down economic theory that wealthy people help the economy by putting their money back into it.

“You leave two cents with the billionaires, they’re not eating more pizzas,” she said. “They’re not buying more cars.” Instead, she proposed, “we invest that two percent in early childhood education and childcare—that means those babies get top-notch care.”

Watch Warren’s response below:

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate