Men Are Going to Strike Back
Wait, That's Why Dems Are Scared About ICE Agents Wearing Body Cams
Bill Maher Had the Perfect Response to Billie Eilish's 'Stolen Land' Nonsense
Some Guy Wanted to Test Something at an Anti-ICE Rally. Their Reaction Says...
The Trump Team Quoted the Perfect TV Show to Defend a Proposed WH...
Why This Former CNN Reporter Saying He'd Fire Scott Jennings Is Amusing
Democrats Have Earned All the Bad Things
TMZ's Halftime Show Poll Isn't Going the Way They Hoped
Bakari Sellers Says America Needs a 'Fumigation' of MAGA
Don Lemon Plays Civil Rights Martyr After Cities Church Mob Arrest
Canadian PM Carney Just Announced a Plan to Make Canadian Inflation Worse
CA Governor Election 2026: Bianco or Hilton
Same Old, Same Old
The Real Purveyors of Jim Crow
The Deep State’s Inversion Matrix Must Be Seen to Be Defeated
Tipsheet

Elizabeth Warren: Candidate of the People?

For as long as I can remember President Obama and his acolytes have been touring the country lecturing the masses ad nauseam about why the rich should pay their “fair share” in taxes. Remember this? But in Massachusetts, interestingly enough, this is not merely a theoretical proposition. As it happens, residents of the Commonwealth have the explicit option to pay more. Put simply, although the standard income tax rate is 5.3 percent, upper income earners – if they so choose – can voluntarily pay 5.85 percent instead. Nearly 2,000 people in 2008 alone took advantage of this option. Consequently, since Elizabeth Warren reportedly earned over $716,000 in 2011 (she’s worth at least $14.5 million), it’s inconceivable that the Harvard professor would pay anything less than highest possible tax rate, right?

Advertisement

Well, according to the Boston Globe, she’s remaining mum on the subject:

But Warren, who owns stock and other investments worth more than $3 million, would not say whether she voluntarily pays a higher state income tax, which the Massachusetts form allows.

“The Buffett rule is about making sure that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, it’s not about funding government through voluntary contributions,’’ her campaign said in an e-mail.

Ah, this is all so very interesting. In other words, the same demagogic Senate candidate who stated publicly last summer she (a) provided the intellectual foundation for the Occupy Wall Street movement and (b) is running for public office on behalf of middle class families might have chosen to pay a lower tax rate when she was quite capable of paying a higher one? Go figure. Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with Americans wanting to keep a larger percentage of their earnings, unless of course that individual had staked her entire Senate candidacy on income inequality. True, it’s certainly possible she opted to pay the top marginal rate -- but if she did -- why not say so publicly? Her silence on the issue is confounding at best, and suggests the former consumer advocate might not be the so-called candidate of the people as she claims to be.

Advertisement

Related:

ELIZABETH WARREN

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement