Harris' tax on unrealized gains applies only to people with assets over $100M, says Bharat Ramamurti

>>> WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY. VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS AND MINNESOTA GOVERNOR TIM WALZ WILL BE SITTING DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW ON CNN TOMORROW NIGHT. INVESTORS ARE HOPING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THEIR ECONOMIC PLAN AND JOINING US RIGHT NOW TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IS BHA BHARAT RAMAMURTI, AN INFORMAL ECONOMIC ADVISER TO THE HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN. AND, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I'M VERY GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE TODAY BECAUSE THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" THAT LAYS OUT WHAT THEY SAY IS HARRIS' TAX POLICY. HER PLAN THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN PLACE AND IT IS NOT VERY OFTEN THAT WE GET SOMEONE WHO KIND OF UNDERSTANDS THE INS AND OUTS, WHO CAN TALK US THROUGH THESE THINGS. I REALIZE THAT IN ORDER FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD HAVE TO MEAN THAT KAMALA HARRIS NOT ONLY WON THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT YOU SWEEP IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. BUT LET'S TALK THROUGH THE WISH LIST, JUST SO INVESTORS CAN REALLY GET THEIR HEADS AROUND SOME OF THESE THINGS. UNDER HER PLANS, TAXES ON HIGH INCOME HOUSEHOLD WILL GO UP. WE HAVE KNOWN THAT'S THE PLAN. TOP MARGINAL RATES WOULD REACH THE HIGHEST POINT SINCE 1986. THAT'S 44.6% ON ALL INCOME VERSUS RIGHT NOW, YOU GOT 23.8% ON CAPITAL GAINS AND JUST OVER 39% ON WAGES. WHY DO WE TALK ABOUT WHY YOU THINK THAT HAS TO HAPPEN AND WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS MIGHT BE. >> SURE. WELL, A COUPLE OF POINTS FROM THAT ARTICLE THAT I THINK ARE WORTH EMPHASIZING. NUMBER ONE, FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE UNDER $400,000 A YEAR, WHICH IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, THEIR TAXES WILL STAY THE SAME OR GO DOWN. UNDER THE HARRIS PLAN. IN FACT, FOR 100 MILLION AMERICANS THEY WOULD GET A TAX CUT UNDER THE HARRIS PLAN. AS FOR VERY, VERY HIGH INCOME AMERICANS, YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME TAX INCREASES UNDER THE PLAN. THEY'RE LARGELY FOCUSED ON CAPITAL INCOME. I THINK IT IS COMMON SENSE POLICY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHERE YOU ADDRESS THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO EARN MOST OF THEIR INCOME, THE RATE THEY PAY ON THAT IS LOWER THAN SOMEONE WHO GOES IN AND TEACHES SCHOOL EVERY DAY OR DRIVES A BUS OR WORKS ON THE FACTORY FLOOR. I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR. I THINK MOST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE WITH THAT. AS WE'RE LOOKING FOR REVENUE TO BRING IN TO DO THIS IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY, IT IS A SOURCE OF INCOME, A SOURCE OF REVENUE THAT MAKES A INHERITED WEALTH. AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY. A LOT OF PEOPLE, WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES, PUT MONEY INTO THE STOCK MARKET AS A SAVINGS PLAN MAKING SURE THEY'RE SAVING MONEY OVER TIME AND ALLOWING THAT TO APPRECIATE, IT'S MONEY ALREADY PAID WAGE TAXES ON, THE THING GOES INTO CAPITAL GAINS. THE STOCK MARKET HAS DONE VERY WELL BECAUSE YOU HAVE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES THAT ARE LOWER. AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO INVEST. IF YOU TAKE THAT AWAY, WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL IN TERMS OF WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE MARKET? >> AGAIN, LOOK. THIS NEW RATE WOULD APPLY TO A VERY SMALL SLIVER OF FOLKS ON THE CAPITAL GAINS SIDE YOU'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE MAKING OVER $1 MILLION EACH YEAR ON WHICH THIS HIGHER RATE WOULD APPLY. I HEAR THE SAME ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER GEAGAIN. WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON, PRESIDENT OBAMA, PRESIDENT BIDEN WERE RUNNING, RADICAL IDEAS THEY'RE PURSUING. LOOK AT THE SCORE OVER THAT TIME PERIOD, 51 MILLION JOBS CREATED 50 MILLION UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENCIES. HIGHER THAN UNDER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCIES. I REALLY THINK THIS IDEA THAT DEMOCRATS ARE PURSUING RADICAL POLICIES IS A MYTH THAT'S PERPETUATED -- >> OKAY. LET ME ADDRESS THAT. >> THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS WILL CUT THEIR TAXES AND DEMOCRATS WON'T. >> LET ME ADDRESS THAT VERY POINT. ANDREW LOTZ IN THIS "WALL STREET JOURNAL" STORY SAYS, AN ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AT BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER SAYS WOULD REPRESENT SEA CHANGES HOW WE TAXED WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES. NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST BUT SEA CHANGES. NOT WHAT WE'VE SEEN UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON OR OTHERS AND A BIG PART IS TAXING UNREALIZED GAINS. MAKING AT LEAST $1 MILLION TAXED AT ORDINARY INCOME. UNREALIZED GAINS ABOVE $5 MILLION PER PERSON EXCLUSION TAXED AT DEATH. THAT TAX WOULD HAVE SOME EXCERPTSES FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES, BUT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TAXING UNREALIZED GAINS AT LEVEL NEVER SEEN IN THE PAST AND NEVER SEEN BEFORE. >> GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP UNREALIZED GAINS. THERE'S MULTIPLE PROPOSALS HERE. TAX ON UNREALIZED GAINS APPLIES TO PEOPLE WITH ASSETS OVER $100 MILLION. EMPHASIZE HOW SMALL A GROUP THAT IS. ABOUT -- LESS THAN ONE HALF OF AMERICANS. 61% OF ONE HALF OF THE COUNTRY. REASONABLE GIVEN THE FLAWED SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW FOR CAPITAL TAXATION THAT PEOPLE IN THAT VERY EXCLUSIVE CATEGORY BE ABLE TO BE TAXED ON UNREALIZED GAINS, AND ALL SORTS OF EXCEPTIONS AND DEFERRALS WITHIN THAT PROPOSAL MAKING SURE IF YOU'RE A FOUNDER OF A COMPANY YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL YOUR COMPANY TO PAY THOSE TAXES RIGHT AWAY. SPREAD IT OUT OVER AN EX- EXTEN PERIOD OF TIME AND SO ON. GOES BACK TO THE FACT WE HAVE A SYSTEM FOLKS IN THAT CATEGORY ARE PAYING LOWER RATES OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR LIFETIME THAN THOSE WITH ORDINARY WAGE INCOME MAKEING $60,000, $70,000 A YEAR. WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. STEP BACK. OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS SEEN EROSION OF THE TAX CODE. BACK IN 2000 BEFORE THE BUSH TAX CUTS, 20 PERCENT OF GDP COMING IN IN REVENUE. THANKS TO THE BUSH AND TRUMP TAX CUTS, CLOSER TO 16%. FUNDAMENTALLY WE HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM. BACK TO THE TAX CODE IN 2000, THE NATIONAL DEBT WOULD BE GOING DOWN. THOSE TAX CUTS HAVE LARGELY GONE TO THE VERY, VERY RICH. >> FIRST OF ALL, THOSE TAX CUTS ARE EXPIRING NEXT YEAR, ANYWAY. >> A SPENDING PROBLEM. >> 23% OF GDP SPENT. USUALLY 19% OR 20%. LONG-TERM AVERAGE IS NOT 20% OF REVENUES. IT'S ABOUT 18%. >> JOE, I DISAGREE. GOT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT. >> DISAGREE ON ACTUAL NUMBERS? WHAT'S THE LONG -- >> NO. AGAIN -- >> WHAT'S THE SPENDING AVERAGE -- HARRIS WANTS TO SPEND MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE SPENDING RIGHT NOW. WHAT'S THE LONG-TERM PERCENTAGE OF SPENDING TO GDP? WHAT DO YOU SAY IT IS? >> OUR SPENDING -- EVERYONE KNEW THIS BACK IN 2,000. SPENDING UP ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BECAUSE OF A BABY BOOMER GENERATION. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S CALLED NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY, SPENDING OTHER THAN SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND OTHER THAN DEFENSE, THAT IS ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY LOW RIGHT NOW. SO -- >> OVERALL -- >> BECAUSE OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE AND SO ON. THOSE WERE ANTICIPATED INCREASES BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE RETIRING. LOOK, UNDER -- WE'RE ABOUT $35 TRILLION IN DOTEEBT RIGHT NOW. $8 TRILLION CAME UNDER THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY. YOUR OWN WEBSITE CNBC I SAW LAST NIGHT SAYING THE TRUMP PLAN WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY -- >> THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE -- A BIG DIFFERENCE ON CNBC.COM. BIG DIFFERENCE. >> THE TRUMP PLAN INCREASE