Perhaps I should call myself a radical centrist. 
That would fit. 
The tax would be levied on the states with an amount proportional to their population, but each state could raise the funds as it chose. (The poorer states would have an incentive to support a constitutional change instead.)
The Feds lack constitutional authority to mandate a drinking age or to impose highway speed limits, but have done so anyway, and constitutionally. My proposal was to find a way to get a constitutional wealth tax. Your resistance leads me to suspect you’re just opposed to a wealth tax, constitutional or not.
The states could just tax the federal government to raise the revenue if we we making up completely new authorities.
DirkHardly is surer that his interpretation of a wealth tax is THE correct one that SCOTUS would definitely go with than is warranted if one believes the opinions of multiple experts, but his positions do seem to be based on an honest belief of what the law is (rather than what we may want it to be).
To the point of this thread being about Warren though … DirkHardly is just a random person who claims certainty on a MB. His overconfident certainty is of no real import. Elizabeth Warren though is basing her various plans on a similarly overstated certainty that her wealth tax idea would pass SCOTUS muster. That overconfident assessment is actually significant.
FWIW I see wealth as power and dramatically increasing wealth inequality as one the top problems our country faces. Her wealth tax idea is something I would like to see. Her presenting it as a sure to ruled constitutional item though, when it not only is no sure thing to be ruled as such, which she cannot but know? That bothers me.
When it comes to paying for things she really is showing a problem with being completely honest and forthcoming.
So from here checked out 538 … which happens to address this subject today!
I don’t want symbols to rally behind with nothing actually accomplished.
You missed the whole point of the latest exchange. I suggested a way to get around the constitutionality issue and DirkHardly objected for reasons unrelated to constitutionality.
Might want to read this concerning the subject of different sovereign entities within the US and their power to tax each other. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3098&context=ylj
Im not a lawyer but here’s a journal article by two Constitutional law professors saying that a wealth tax is constitutional: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11279&context=ilj
One of the authors leads “Harvard Law School’s Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Clinic,” which seems like a relevant background?
Once again, on what basis do you assume that each state must raise its “share” from its citizens and then pay the tax on their behalf? That would be a Requisition Tax, which has never been used in the entire history of the United States (which should probably tell you something in and of itself). Raising taxes for the Federal Government by this method was essentially the method used under the Articles of Confederation. It was a massive failure and in response the Framers specifically increased the powers of the Federal government to tax, and in doing so necessarily changed the methods.
Now some of the Framers thought that a Requisition Tax “survived” the ratification of the Constitution and still remained a legitimate option as a use of Congressional Power but other Framers insisted that it had not. That issue has never been resolved because obviously it has never been a question before the courts. However, we do know under modern precedents that the Federal government may not co-opt the states to enforce Federal regulatory schemes (and perhaps you may have noticed one aspect of this general principle on display in the refusal of local authorities to participate in enforcing Federal immigration law, but there are numerous other examples). So as far as a Requisition Tax would be analogus to these other Constitutionally impermissible uses of state resources and authority to enforce Federal law then it would be Constitutionally suspect as well.
Of course your proposed tax is also a Capitation Tax. And once again as far as I can tell there has never been a Federal Capitation Tax in the entire history of the country (which again, should probably tell you something). There were, however, examples of other Federal direct taxes in the early days of the country’s history and they were considered massive failures. Partly this was due to the complex schemes required to satisfy the Apportionment requirement but they were also incredibly unpopular and led to at least one tax rebellion. And at least in the earliest implementations of these taxes Congress explicitly considered the use of a Requisition Tax and summarily rejected it for the same reasons it had become disfavored under the AoC and despite the increased Federal powers to tax.
So while a Capitation Tax is inherently apportioned, so that is not an issue with your proposed tax, you still face the practical issues inherent in a Requisition Tax as well as that method being in fact Constitutionally suspect. Given all that, why do you think that your proposed Capitation Tax, if passed, would not default, both legally and practically, to each individual paying their share directly to the IRS and the states playing no direct or meaningful role whatsoever?
And it’s funny how despite me listing numerous practical issues (which you notably failed to address at all) and now Constitutional ones as well (given all the other obvious flaws in your proposal I didn’t feel the need to get to those yet) that you assumed that my post/position was based on bias on my part instead of, you know, all those facts I mentioned.
For instance, you still have not addressed why you believe that there is the political will for the imposition of an inherently regressive tax which would affect the poorest people throughout the country. And, again, I doubt “it’s to prove a larger point” or “don’t worry, there are more poor people paying this tax in Mississippi” would provide much political cover in this situation. Lastly, has it occurred to you that in your desire to punish those “poor Red states” that the Republican strongholds of California, New York, and Illinois would shoulder over one-fifth of the burden for your proposed tax by themselves? Throw in purplish Texas and you’re over 30% with just those four states. So are you willing to claim that such a tax would likely have the support of either the public at large or the politicians who answer to that public?
There’s an important distinction to be made here that at least some other posters (and some in the media) have failed to recognize. Many of the opinions (perhaps most and including the one you linked to) that argue that a wealth tax is Constitutional are not arguing that it is Constitutional under current law. They are instead arguing that the Court’s decision in Pollock was wrongly decided according to their (the authors’) interpretation of the Constitution and should be overturned. Thus, they argue, the Court should return to the standard under Hylton which Pollock partially overturned and which held, simply put, taxes on Personal Property which could not reasonably be apportioned were not direct taxes under the Constitution.
Of course one major problem with this argument is that the Court in Hylton was explicitly hostile to the Apportionment requirement itself. Several of the Justices were signers of the Constitution but obviously unhappy with the compromise that actually made its way into the text of the document. They also used plainly circular logic to conclude that (paraphrasing), “if a direct tax must be apportioned then any tax which cannot reasonably be apportioned must not be a direct tax.” Just awful, logically indefensible reasoning that proponents of Hylton tend to gloss over. Also, tellingly, many fail to mention that one major aspect of the proposed wealth tax, a tax on Real Property and buildings (presumably as fixtures they would be considered part of the land), would necessitate overruling Hylton as well since its holding that taxes on Real Property were direct taxes subject to apportionment is still good law.
And here’s the thing, I’m far from the only one making the argument that the proposed wealth tax is unconstitutional. Strangely enough though, people who apparently favor the wealth tax have only cited arguments and opinions that agree with them while portraying the debate as me alone against the weight of those experts. And quite a few media outlets have likewise demonstrated their bias by citing those arguments by a small number of legal scholars/experts as if there is a unanimous or even widely-held consensus on the issue and not even acknowledging the existence of any arguments to the contrary. But since most everyone involved has continually ignored their existence I’ll go ahead and post links to arguments by legal scholars that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional (admittedly to varying degrees of certitude):
Here is noted Constitutional/legal scholar Jonathan Turley in the Washington Post
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/elizabeth-warrens-popular-plan-to-tax-the-rich-is-probably-unconstitutional/2019/02/14/60195bc4-2fec-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjq_ZrMkMDlAhUBnKwKHXS8CsEQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3oggkYI9fJY0tbMRup-P8_&cf=1
Erik M. Jensen, Coleman P. Burke Professor Emeritus of Law at Case Western Reserve University.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article229090554.html&ved=2ahUKEwiM2JmWkMDlAhV2RhUIHQTSB404ChAWMAl6BAgCEAE&usg=AOvVaw1b7sxXcQ1-jgxJ1f3AsAJK
And an excellent law journal article by Joseph M. Dodge, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson Professor at Florida State University College of Law
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ssrn.com/abstract%3D1311957&ved=2ahUKEwiRuPHalsDlAhVRjp4KHVjDBQkQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1AZxL2mkb_nsgkcypfrmi-&cshid=1572307744404
FWIW some of us most certainly do not argue that there are not others who believe SCOTUS would rule against it. We argue against the certainty that you claim. It seems probable that near half the court would rule it is and near half would rule not. The decider seems likely to be Roberts and not all agree with your inference of how he’d decide based on Sebelius.
You might be right. Maybe even likely are. I dunno. But until they rule no one can say for sure how they will. To me the fact that it might be ruled against is problematic enough.
Can we maybe talk about Warren a bit?
Sounds like an unsettled area of law where anyone who makes statements of certainty is probably wrong.
However, seems simple enough to sidestep the issue by converting a wealth tax into an income tax—simply disallow deferral of unrealized capital gains. Done.
@ Velocity — No retraction from you? Acknowledgement? Rebuttal?
I just noticed someone else in another thread has essentially the same confusion. Fighting ignorance is difficult indeed.
Ms. Warren has now released her plans on how to pay for M4A.
[ul][li]The 3% wealth tax is now 6%.[/ul][/li][ul][li]She is not raising taxes (allegedly) on the middle class, but she is on employers. She says this will replace what they are now paying for health insurance. This is problematic for a couple of reasons -[list][]Employees will have to pay taxes on whatever amount their take-home pay is increased by, which is dangerously close to breaking her pledge, and[]this is supposed to cost $52T over ten years, and not $59T, which is what she says is what we will pay if we don’t implement M4A. If the premiums are merely replaced by the taxes, costs will not go down and we won’t save the $7T.[/ul][/list][/li][ul]This does not address the elephant in the room, which is how to get doctors and health care providers to accept Medicare rates when they currently lose money on 65-80% of their Medicare patients.[/ul]Coupled with her idea of banning private insurance, doctors and so forth will have no one to charge to make up their losses. Not sure how that will work, if it works at all.
At least she is putting forth a plan. Biden and the other Democrats are attacking already, but without any better suggestions, at least to date.
My take on it remains the same - if we could get doctors to accept Medicare rates, we don’t need the rest of it. The only question is how. Just like the beggar’s only problem with riding is that he doesn’t have a horse.
Regards,
Shodan
Her argument Shodan (albeit without any data cited to support it that I see, and I’d love to see it) is that doctors will take less payment in but at the same time spend less as they can fire almost all the staff they now have that deals with insurance and billing. (Those “hours they currently spend billing a swath of interlocking private and public insurance plans to providing care” are almost all hours that others are hired to do.) Hence in net make about the same.
As discussed in other threads those job losses are a major part of the savings of the plan.
I suspect that it is a false claim and am bothered that the huge success of Medicare Advantage and value-based metrics would be tossed out in favor a reduced payment productivity model that incentivizes volume of patients pushed through over quality. But there is an argument offered to justify the lower rates paid.
IF however her argument is specious then the projected looming shortage of physicians is likely to get much worse.
Ya think some will move up retirement if their pay gets by cut a substantial amount? Ya think a few will think a bit harder about choosing the career path with its prolonged education and training phase? I do. And I absolutely love what I do.
Here I would strongly disagree. The ACA has been and remains a better suggestion. Building on it with a public option, increased tax credits, and limiting the power of Big Pharma some, is a better suggestion yet. Several Democrats support these better suggestions.
One strategy that Warren missed was to just promise the thing without any explanation of how it would be paid for, like Trump’s wall.
Lol. Everyone who had any historical knowledge knew that the wealth tax proposal wasn’t going to be fixed at 3%. If ever implemented and found constitutional it won’t be single digit for long either.
Elizabeth Warren cannot – I repeat, CANNOT – defeat Donald Trump unless there is a massive economic crisis.
The moment ordinary folk hear that her healthcare plan is going to cost $20 trill, it’s over. She’ll get laughed out of the debate auditorium.