Billionaires freaked when there was talk about eliminating them. But no one was talking about guillotines or firing squads-- just more equitable tax plans. That's what Bernie proposed, what AOC proposed and what Elizabeth Warren proposed. And the billionaires and their lackeys went bonkers.A littler history. The top marginal tax rates on multimillionaires-- there were no billionaires back then-- was 25% in the Roaring Twenties, a purely Republican economy that led directly to the Great Depression. FDR and the Democratic-controlled Congress raised the top rate to 63% in 1932 and then 79% in 1936. In 1941-- as World War II raged-- the top rate went up to 81%, 88% the following year and a much fairer 94% in 1944. After 1946, the very wealthy and their conservative allies in both parties worked to bring the rate down, first back to 91% and in 1964 to 77% and then 70% in 1965 both cuts under conservative Democrat Lyndon Johnson with congresses largely controlled by a coalition of conservative (mostly Southern) Democrats and Republicans. That was already way too low but in 1982, another conservative Democrat, Jimmy Carter lowered the top rate to 50%. After Reagan was completely senile and with virtually no participation the government, Republicans around him lowered the rate to 38.5 and then 28. It went up and down within a very low tight range between 28 and 39 .6 ever since. Currently the top marginal rate on regular income is 37%, although the system is so riven with loop-holes that few billionaires pay anywhere near that amount.Jamie Dimon went after Elizabeth Warren this week, claiming she "vilifies successful people," presumably defining "successful people" as the ones who have accumulated the most wealth. AOC's proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to a measly 70%-- instead of to the 90% level where it belongs-- is wildly popular among non-billionaires. Last February a Morning Consult poll for Politico, in line with similar polls, found that just 9% of registered votes think upper income people pay too much in taxes while 63% say they pay too little. Among Democrats 78% said the rich don't pay enough as do 61% of independents and 46% of Republicans.They were also asked if they think the tax system favors the wealthy. 73% of registered votes said yes and only 14% disagreed. 87% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 55% of Republicans agree that the tax system favors the wealthy. 77% agreed that the system has too many loop-holes (including 82% of Democrats, 78% of independents and 71% of Republicans).When asked if the wealthy should pay higher taxes 54% of registered voters agreed strongly and 22% somewhat agreed; that's 76%. Among Democrats 74% agreed strongly and 17% agreed somewhat, which makes 91%. Among Independents 52% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (74%). And among Republicans 32% agreed strongly and 30% agreed somewhat (62%).They tested version of the wealth tax plans advocated by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie with this question: "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to levy a new, 2 percent annual tax on all assets owned by households with a net worth of $50 million or more, and an additional 1 percent tax on households with a net worth of more than $1 billion?" Among all registered voters, 39% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (61%). Among Democrats, it's 53% strongly and 21% somewhat, a total of 74%. Even among Republicans the overall number is 50% in favor and just 30% opposed.Another related question was "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to increase the marginal tax rate on income over $10 million a year to 70 percent?" And once again, among all registered voters 27% strongly favored and 18% somewhat favored 45%, which went up to 38% strongly and 22% somewhat among Democrats, a total of 60%.The best of the plans is Bernie's, which would put a 1% tax on the top 0.1% of households-- so a 1% tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple, which means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000. It would rise to 2% on households with a net worth between $50 million and $250 million, 3% on net worth up to $500 million, 4% on net worth up to $1 billion, and up to an 8% tax on wealth over $10 billion.That said, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, of late claiming to be a Democrat, is filing to run for president, at least in Alabama.
Despite preparing to file the necessary paperwork in Alabama, Bloomberg has yet to make a final decision on a run, the spokesman added.Bloomberg's possible entrance comes as former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign struggles to break out of the Democratic field and as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a liberal lawmaker who has railed against billionaires like Bloomberg, rises in the Democratic primary campaign. A possible Bloomberg bid would be sure to dramatically shake up the Democratic primary process.The reason Bloomberg is filing in Alabama is strictly because of the state's early filing deadline. Despite it not being an early nominating state-- Alabamans will pick their Democratic nominee on March 3-- the state has a filing deadline on Friday.Bloomberg has privately expressed concerns about the strength of the 2020 field, according to a person familiar with his thinking.The billionaire's decision to lay the groundwork for a run comes as Warren rises in the polls."He certainly disagrees with a lot of what she's put out there," said the person. "But he thinks she's smart and has put a lot of thought into her policies."Bloomberg publicly entertained a 2020 bid earlier this year, traveling the country to meet with voters and determine whether a run was possible. He told reporters during this public speculation that he was seriously considering a bid, to the point that he had decided he would self-fund a campaign."In terms of running for office, I ran three times. I used only my own money, so I didn't have to ask anybody what they wanted in return for a contribution," he told CNN in January. "The public liked that every time they elected me. And, if I ran again, I would do the same thing."But Bloomberg decided in March that he would not run for president, even though he had been leaning toward it for months."As I've thought about a possible presidential campaign, the choice before me has become clear. Should I devote the next two years to talking about my ideas and record, knowing that I might never win the Democratic nomination? Or should I spend the next two years doubling down on the work that I am already leading and funding, and that I know can produce real and beneficial results for the country, right now," he wrote in an opinion piece. "I've come to realize that I'm less interested in talking than doing."He added: "And I have concluded that, for now, the best way for me to help our country is by rolling up my sleeves and continuing to get work done."Bloomberg, however, has begun to rethink that decision, in part, because he does not believe any of the current candidates are positioned to defeat Trump.That is an unflattering indictment of the Democratic field by the former New York mayor, who found earlier this year that there would be a narrow path to victory with Biden in the race. Since then, however, Biden's campaign has failed to take off, struggling to both capture the Democratic base and to raise money, and Bloomberg's possible entry will represent a direct threat to the former vice president.Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg's spokesman, said Bloomberg wants to "finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated.""But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that," Wolfson said. "If Mike runs he would offer a new choice to Democrats built on a unique record running America's biggest city, building a business from scratch and taking on some of America's toughest challenges as a high-impact philanthropist."Wolfson added: "Based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win."Bloomberg's possible run would be met with a series of serious questions from the Democratic base.Rather than an asset, Bloomberg's wealth could be considered a knock against him. Candidates like Warren and others have decried self-funding campaigns and run hard against the impact that money has in politics.When Bloomberg considered a run earlier this year, a number of Democratic operatives told CNN they believed that a Bloomberg campaign would be doomed by the mayor's positions on policing, ties to Wall Street and the fact that he had spent much of his time in politics as a Republican and independent.But Bloomberg also would bring considerable strengths to a campaign, including his work on climate change and guns and the fact that he has spent millions on Democratic causes for years.
Generally speaking, Democrats who ran as Democrats and on Democratic values did well across the country on Tuesday. Democrats who are politically like Bloomberg and who ran as Republican-lite candidates-- notably Jim Hood in Mississippi's gubernatorial race and Bob Andrzejczak in New Jersey's one state Senate race-- failed to enthuse base votes, who didn't bother voting, ceding both elections to the Republicans. No doubt Bloomberg's strategy is to count on a brokered convention that he can buy. And, without a doubt, that would mean 4 more years of Trump.
