WHEN REALITY BITES: Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Factually Vacant 'Rich Pay 8%' Tax Claim

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would likely today be a quarrelsome local education union official somewhere in her native Oklahoma had she not left the Sooner State in search of greener pastures following her father's death.

Advertisement

She was born in Norman, home of a certain college football team associated with a university that is actually a left-wing troll manufacturer in one of America's reddest states, and somehow, according to Wikipedia, ended up graduating from Northwest Classen High School in Oklahoma City in 1966.

Having myself grownup on Okie City's southside — aka the "poor side of town" where we rednecks resided —my classmates and I in Moore High School's class of 1968 mostly viewed Classen as a school for rich kids because it drew students from some of the most affluent neighborhoods in the state.

Interestingly, Warren's Classen debate team won a state championship. As it happens, I was on Moore's debate team with a then-young fellow named Tom Cole, who was a year ahead of me. You may have heard of Tom as he's now Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, a position from which he wields vastly more influence on the nation than Warren likely ever will have.

Anyway, enough of the Liz Warren, Okie, history lesson. She ended up at Harvard, ran for the Senate and won in 2012, where she has afflicted the national public policy debate with endless streams of the Left's nonsensical "government-is-our-salvation" rhetoric masquerading as intelligent discussion.

A recent example of which is her April 15 Tax Day "Reminder: The average taxpayer pays 13% of their income in taxes. The wealthiest 400 families in the U.S. pay just 8% of their income in taxes.It’s time to make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share.It’s time to pass a wealth tax." 

Advertisement

If you have paid even the scantest attention to American politics since FDR, you have heard millions of variations on Warren's claim because it's conventional wisdom on the Left, which has been failing the test of reality since before the New Deal.

As I expected, Just Facts Daily (JFD) addressed Warren's assertion and found it wanting:

"IN FACT, the wealthy pay about 33% of their income in federal taxes, even after write-offs. Warren’s 8% figure misleadingly counts paper gains as income and excludes massive amounts of taxes paid by wealthy people," JFD reported.

Here are the specifics (Actually, there are more, but the following seven points ought to be the end of the discussion. For those who want more, however, JFD is happy to oblige with five more points at the link):

  • The U.S. Treasury estimates that the richest 0.1% of families paid an average effective federal tax rate of 33.5% in 2024.
  • The Treasury’s estimates of effective federal tax rates roughly accord with data published by the Congressional Budget Office, which typically lag the Treasury data by several years.
  • Unlike the incomplete and misleading tax rates reported by the media and politicians of both parties, the Treasury’s and CBO’s computations of effective federal tax rates reflect actual taxes paid (not marginal rates) and account for nearly all forms of income and nearly all federal taxes, such as capital gains, pensions, health benefits, payroll taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, hidden taxes and write-offs (aka preferences).
  • Warren cites no source for her figure of 8%, but it accords with a 2021 Biden White House analysis that estimated an “average federal individual income tax rate” of 8.2% for “America’s 400 wealthiest families” during 2010–2018.
  • Contrary to Warren, that analysis is not a full measure of “taxes” because it only includes “federal individual income taxes” and excludes all other types of federal taxes, such as social insurance taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, and gift taxes.
  • Contrary to the law and reality, the Biden White House analysis understates the actual income tax rate by counting “unrealized capital gains” as “income.”
  • Per the Supreme Court’s 1920 ruling in Eisner v. Macomber, “increase in value of capital investment is not income in any proper meaning of the term,” and “mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income.”
Advertisement


Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

Recommended

Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Advertisement
Advertisement