Reality is setting in for Kamala Harris. She can’t hide away from the tough questions forever.
And now this Biden-Harris official has made a massive blunder on CNBC that Kamala is furious about.
The fantasy land economic proposals from the Kamala Harris campaign are not doing so hot under the microscope. Even those who may be biased for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump are having a tough time trying to defend these proposals that are not grounded in any reality at all. Plans like just handing out $25,000 for down-payment assistance on homes aren’t even remotely possible and only serve to try and get votes.
Recently, a Biden-Harris administration official went on a Harris-friendly network (as most of the mainstream outlets are these days) and tried to defend her economic policies, but it went so poorly it is cringe-inducing. The Kamala Harris campaign got flat-out embarrassed because of this interview.
CNBC anchors Joe Kernan and Becky Quick engaged in a heated discussion with former Biden administration official Bharat Ramamurti regarding Vice President Kamala Harris’ support for taxing unrealized capital gains. The debate took place on Wednesday during the Squawk Box show, focusing on a proposal that could significantly impact wealthy Americans.
Harris has endorsed a plan to impose taxes on unrealized capital gains for individuals with assets exceeding $100 million, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. Ramamurti, defending the proposal, claimed that it would affect only around 60,000 Americans. However, Quick challenged the fairness and feasibility of the plan.
“My biggest problem is with unrealized gains. You can go back again and say it’s only for people [with assets over $100 million]. That clearly doesn’t impact me, it’s not going to be an issue for me,” Quick remarked, drawing a parallel to historical tax changes.
“When the first American income tax was put in place in 1861, it was a flat 3% tax on all incomes over $800. We know how that has changed over time. Unrealized gains, taxing unrealized gains just doesn’t seem fair in any sense of the word, but in the very best sense, taxing unrealized gains all you’re doing is pulling forward taxes that would be paid later when someone actually sells the stock.”
Ramamurti responded by comparing the proposed tax on unrealized gains to existing property taxes. “I think that this reaction to unrealized gains is a little funny given that I bet that the majority of people watching right now are already paying a tax on unrealized gains. It’s called a property tax,” he said.
The comparison drew sharp reactions from both Kernan and Quick. Kernan scoffed at the notion, while Quick argued, “A property tax is a use tax, it’s a use tax, you’re paying for schools.” This sparked a back-and-forth between Ramamurti and the hosts as they debated the fluctuating nature of stocks and the constitutionality of the proposal.
Kernen further questioned the legality of the tax, stating, “It’s probably unconstitutional. And it’s never gonna happen, probably.” Quick echoed his sentiment, adding, “It’s not income.”
The discussion also touched on previous legislative efforts, such as the 2021 proposal by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, which sought to implement a wealth tax on those with over $50 million in assets.
Government Just Won’t Stop Spending Money It Doesn’t Have
These plans from the Harris campaign are problematic because she has all these plans to dramatically increase the tax burden on wealthy Americans, but she has no intentions to balance the budget with reasonable federal government spending levels.
Increasing the corporate tax rate by more than 33%, as she’s suggested, will harm businesses but then provide no real benefit to the American people because the government can’t even afford any of the “opportunity” plans that Harris is saying she wants to implement. There is no money to be spent on free college, free down-payment assistance, and more free healthcare. The math just simply doesn’t add up right now.
The fact of the matter is that the last four Presidents have all done a horrible job trying to balance the federal budget and get the national federal debt under control. At least in the case of Donald Trump, though, he didn’t sacrifice business at the altar of taxes. Yes, he overspent the federal checkbook, but his administration was a boon for the private economy.
In the case of Kamala Harris, the concern is she will be both bad on federal spending and bad on business, creating a worst of both worlds scenario that will be devastating to American economic health.
Maybe just once we could try cutting the federal budget rather than ever expanding and kicking the can down the road.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
