On Saturday, billionaire Mark Cuban slammed Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren for her proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy, of which Forbes noted, “Add them up and many of the very wealthiest could pay a marginal effective tax rate on their investments that exceeds 100 percent.”

Cuban tweeted, “The reality for @ewarren is that this is as much to divert attention from her income and net worth as anything else. Other than steyer she is the wealthiest of all the Dem Candidates. By far.”

The reality for @ewarren is that this is as much to divert attention from her income and net worth as anything else. Other than steyer she is the wealthiest of all the Dem Candidates. By far. https://t.co/IuW5pVo6Sd — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 9, 2019

Cuban noted, “According to her filings she made 900k last year which means her family earns more than 2x the amount needed to be a 1 percenter. She paid 25.5% of that in taxes which is less than the % I paid in taxes (29.85%)”

According to her filings she made 900k last year which means her family earns more than 2x the amount needed to be a 1 percenter. She paid 25.5% of that in taxes which is less than the % I paid in taxes (29.85%) — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 9, 2019

The New York Times noted disapprovingly on Sunday, “Some magnates, like Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates, have pledged to give at least half of their wealth to charity during their lifetimes, which still leaves them — and not the government — in control of how those vast sums will be spent.

The Times noted of Warren’s plan, “So in some cases and some years, multibillionaires could owe the government more than they made in profits. That’s because these taxpayers would be taxed at a 6 percent rate even if their portfolios held, say, Treasury bonds that paid just 2.5 percent.”

In September 2017, The Washington Times reported that Warren met WRKO radio host Jeff Kuhner and nodded when Kuhner commented, “Question: You often say, and I agree with you, that the 99 percent are getting shafted by the one percent. You live in Cambridge, you’ve got a $2 million mansion.”

Kuhner continued, “Plus you’re a multimillionaire yourself. How can you rail against the one percent, when in a sense, you are and live like the one percent?”

Politico reported in January 2019 that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz slammed Warren’s “ultramillionaire” tax, “which would create a 2 percent wealth tax on those with a net worth above $50 million and impose an additional 1 percent on net worth above $1 billion.” Schultz asserted, “However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that’s not something that’s ever gonna be passed, this is what’s wrong. You can’t just attack these things in a punitive way by punishing people.”

In response, Warren tweeted another attack on the 1%, writing, “What’s ‘ridiculous’ is billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else. The top 0.1 percent, who’d pay my #UltraMillionaireTax, own about the same wealth as 90 percent of America.”

Cuban concluded, “Forbes says her net worth is north of $12m. That’s being rich. Filthy rich. I’m sure it’s richer than she ever imagined she would be. Good for her. She earned it. It puts her millions above the threshold for being part of the richest 1 percent by net worth in our country.”