In a week marked by Vice President Kamala Harris unveiling her most comprehensive proposal yet—a staggering $5 trillion in tax increases over the next decade—her plan faced immediate and intense criticism. The proposal, which aligns with Joe Biden’s spring budget, aims to generate billions by taxing everything from corporate profits to unrealized capital gains. However, CNBC’s co-hosts made it clear that the proposal is far from a sure thing. During a Wednesday segment, hosts Becky Quick and Joe Kernan sharply criticized Harris’s economic advisor, Bharat Ramamurti, calling the idea of taxing unrealized gains “nothing short of lunacy.”
“Unrealized gains, taxing unrealized gains just doesn’t seem fair in any sense of the word,” Quick fired off during the exchange. “In the very best sense, if you are taxing unrealized gains, all you’re doing is pulling forward the taxes that would be paid later when someone actually sells the stock.” Ramamurti’s response was a tone-deaf analogy that fell flat. “I think this reaction to unrealized gains is a little funny,” he said. “The majority of people watching right now are already paying a tax on unrealized gains. It’s called a property tax. When the value of your home goes up, you pay higher taxes even if you don’t sell your home.”
Quick, however, fired back, “The value of your home never moves the way a stock moves, the way something else moves.” Ramamurti then tried to justify the tax to fund essential services, claiming it would “create more opportunities” and ensure “every newborn in this country gets $6,000.” But the co-hosts weren’t buying it, and Kernan summed up the proposal this way: “It’s probably unconstitutional, and it was never in anyone’s intent to do.” He added: “And it’s never going to happen. Not in my life. Not in Becky’s life.”
WATCH:
Kernen last week expressed similar frustration with Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren during a debate on price gouging, accusing her of continually speaking over him. Kernen, a former stockbroker and host of “Squawk Box,” criticized Warren’s debating style, stating that her interruptions made it challenging for him to respond and essentially prevented her from losing an argument. The debate focused on Vice President Kamala Harri’s recent proposal to impose a federal ban on so-called “price gouging” on groceries, which has faced significant opposition.
“If you lose The Washington Post as a Democrat, you got some serious problems. This is what they said about the price gouging, or the price control legislation,” Kernen said during the contentious segment. “It was really pilloried from both sides of the aisle … I can paint you a picture how that would work and how it’s worked in the past, where we’ve tried to artificially hold prices down. Competition doesn’t come in. Like if beef is too high, people don’t move the chicken. Competitors don’t come in to undercut where the beef prices are. Nothing works when you try to artificially control prices. It’s just the supply and demand issue. It’s a flawed idea.”
Warren asked Kernen if he had a question or if he was just making a statement. The CNBC host clarified his question was about why Warren would agree to an idea like this. “I understand if you want to do a lecture about this, but let’s just start with, where have you been for the last 30 years, as three dozen states have price gouging laws, and they have used them effectively? States like Texas and Florida. They’ve used price gouging laws. Price gouging laws are not price control,” Warren said. “Price gouging laws are to say, ‘you know, sometimes markets go off the rails, and when they do, we need some ways to get them back on the rails. We need some curbs on that behavior.’”
“So, for example, we watched in the pandemic how prices went up for a whole lot of reasons. They went up partly because we had supply chain kinks. We had problems because of the war in Ukraine that cut supplies of certain commodities. And one of the things that happened as a result of that is there were corporations that said, ‘whoa. Now that we have inflation, now that prices are up overall, this is a great opportunity for us to raise prices, not just in passing along costs, but to go way, way, way above that,’” she continued. “And how do we know that it was way, way above just passing along costs? Look at what happened to their profit margins.”
Warren argued that companies in concentrated industries, such as the egg sector, increased their prices to enhance profits rather than merely passing along costs. As Kernen tried to counter her argument, Warren continued to speak over him. The host then brought up how Warren has alleged Kraft-Heinz “increased profits by 448% in 2022.” Kernan said: “Kraft, you say, was 440% profit increase. The example you used, the prior quarter from the year before, they had a charge of 1.3 billion dollars, an accounting change, which wiped out profits.”
Warren talked over the CNBC host again, and he asked her to let him complete his thoughts. “You didn’t let me finish. Look at the data. Come on. We have economic study after economic study,” she said. “This is the way you never lose an argument because no one can ever say anything back to you, Senator. It’s frustrating,” Kernen later said.
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.