I’m still not seeing how this tax is in any way constitutional if not apportioned.
It’s possible that implementation of this tax would include a constitutional amendment to permit it. So I don’t think there’s any reason to get hung up on the constitutional question.
Well then, let’s be realistic. It’s never going to happen.
With or without an constitutional amendment, the proposal is a long shot.
This was linked on the first page by LHoD:
American Bar Association Policy Point: A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*
(basically the definition of “direct tax” has long been gutted and the Supreme Court has long moved away from the one decision that might make this tax unconstitutional.)
That is an inaccurate summation of both the law journal article LHoD posted and the current state of the law. The journal article is part scholarly work and part position paper and it advocates a radical return to the precedent under *Hylton v United States * 3 US 171 (1796). Their problem is that Hylton was just a terribly reasoned decision. The Court relied on the most obviously flawed logic and showed outright hostility to the plain language of the Constitution. At one point, one Justice characterized the apportionment rule itself as “radically wrong.” Think about that. They actually referred to a part of the Constitutional text itself as “radically wrong.”
And the courts have in fact shown no indication of moving away from the standard under Pollock and it has been reaffirmed and cited numerous times in other decisions at all levels. And as far as the current Court, even the authors acknowledge that they have affirmed that standard as recently as Sebelius. So no, everything indicates that any wealth tax on Real or Personal Property would be a direct tax and subject to apportionment. The article is their argument on why a wealth tax should be Constitutional, not on why it is in fact Constitutional under current law.
Oh well, it’s only 4 billion euros…
And those people are the worst kind of antisocial scum, should be denounced as such and possibly even have their remaining French assets nationalized. It’s not like there’s no established precedent for seizing the castles of rich parasites fleeing to England… Let them earn the wealth they self-evidently deserve from their PO box in the Caimans, yeah ?
Mind you, if repealing the ISF had been the only “but rich people ! :(” move by the Macron administration, I would have maybe characterized it differently. But when the sum aggregate of LREM policies is demonstrably overwhelmingly in favour of the 1% and detrimental to everyone else, and when the absolute tosser is dead set on privatizing* the National Lottery* (which is both problematic in its mere existence, but also a strict money maker for the government) it’s difficult to not think of him as the “président des riches”. It becomes extremely difficult when the abolition of the ISF was coupled with a tax on diesel fuel to make up for the lost revenue - a tax which overwhelmingly affects the poor and the rural. But it’s cool, it’s cool, *they *can’t leave the country so…
I really don’t get this argument. “Because we need the money” that’s why. If you can mentally come to terms with *any *taxation being justified or justifiable to begin with, then what’s so oogyboogy about “double taxation”, exactly ?
Ummmm, yes we should. The standard is much higher for an amendment. The law itself could pass with only majorities in both houses and a Dem president. Not so with an amendment.
This isn’t accounting. You can’t tally the assets of Amazon and give me its worth based on a balance sheet. Because it’s publicly traded, we can tally its market cap, but most companies aren’t publicly traded. This is why valuation is an expensive undertaking that nobody in their right mind performs annually.
An accountant shouldn’t need that explained.
And whether or not the tax applies to me is irrelevant. The OP doesn’t ask whether it does it should; the OP asks how valuation is supposed to work. You obviously don’t know. The wealth of the rich is not a sum of fixed assets on a balance sheet.
Oh oh there’s a name for this. I read about in the context of real estate, where you declare your property’s value and are then forced to sell if someone makes an offer.
Can’t find the name but Eric Posner and Glen Weyl have a book on it that I haven’t read: Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society by Eric A. Posner | Goodreads
Probably a discussion for another thread.
Are we talking about your business or are we talking about Amazon? Are we talking about a publicly traded company or a sole proprietor? We can value your business based on it’s balance sheet. We can do the same for Amazon. I think you are getting hung up on different methods of valuation. You can say my house’s value is its tax assessed value, its insurance value, or what I can sell it for. The government says my house is worth its tax assessed value, and that is what my property taxes are based on.
If the government is taxing your wealth, per the position of Warren, they will have formulaic methods to determine the value of your assets. Since this tax is not a business tax, it won’t require anyone to decide if Amazon is worth its market cap or its balance sheet, it will require that we determine how much Amazon stock Jeff Bezos holds and what the value of that stock is. Maybe the formula will be a three month average. Maybe it will be a closing price on a certain day. Maybe it will be the value on his 1099-DIV.
Valuation is only expensive if you are trying to sell your company, either to one party or to the public. It’s expensive for me to hire an appraiser to tell me how much my house is worth. I did it once 15 years ago, when I bought my house. I don’t need to do this every year to pay my property tax. It’s expensive for my city to revise the tax assessed value of my house. They don’t do it every year. They’ve done it twice in 15 years. If I feel they have overvalued my house, and thus are charging me too much in property tax, there exists a process for me to appeal.
This would not be an annual process where you start from scratch valuing every asset. Most assets will already be valued. Real property, securities, cash all already have a value attached to them. Other property that would be taxed, perhaps art, already has an insurance value. I can’t imagine that anyone is going to ask Jeff Bezos to value his wardrobe, so maybe the super wealthy start to hide all their wealth in very expensive sneakers.
Of course I’m getting hung up on different methods of valuation; that’s the entire point of this thread! Yes, this is a business tax; she says right there in her summary that she’s going after closely held businesses, i.e. most businesses.
My old dentist sold his practice, not so much for the space and equipment, but for the valuable patient base. I have clients with value primarily in their IP and know-how. Small consulting shops gobble each other up all the time, not for their laptops and printers. Those valuations are non-trivial and expensive. Not to mention volatile. And not an accounting tally.
Most companies aren’t publicly traded. Private businesses are a far larger chunk of the wealthy’s wealth than of everyone else’s wealth. So since she intends to tax that wealth, how does she plan to measure it? That’s what the OP asks, and it doesn’t look like you know.
The local government says how much my house is worth for local tax purposes. Their rules for valuation are different from the neighboring communities’. And their estimate is nowhere close to the one (with laughable methodology) I paid for when I bought the place. Has Warren explained how she intends the IRS to handle this? No, she has not.
Is she valuing pension? Unclear. She’s sure eyeing 401ks. Claims on future SS and Medicare benefits? Probably not.
Yes, there are multiple ways to value valuable things. That’s not news to anyone. What we’re trying to figure out here is how:
As I mentioned, the IRS already has rules for valuation for inheritance. She wants them to develop new rules, but does not touch on where the current rules are deficient or how they will be changed.
And to everyone else, whether the proposal is effective or fair is immaterial here since we don’t really know what the proposal is.
IMO - A wealth tax will only encourage more cheating and would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.
Why is a consumer tax not something that is on the democratic radar?
As a registered democrat myself, i do not understand how a consumer tax is considered a republican concept (as many of my friends inform me). 
A consumer tax gives the individual more flexibility in when and how they are taxed as well as taxing more proportionally based on income as billionaires are taxed on their yachts, ferraris and beach homes while the average Joe is taxed on bread and milk.
I know there is more nuance than the above, but you get my point. 
In my understanding, a national sales tax is generally opposed by progressives because it would serve to increase the tax burden on the very poor (barring some sort of automatic rebate, or something like that).
Yes, it is a fascinating concept. And I’m one of the 1% of non-economics PhD holders who thinks it’s probably a good idea, but I recognize that I’m in an extreme minority and it’s absurdly unlikely to ever happen. I would participate in a thread on the pros and cons of it if you started one.
It’s unconstitutional and overly complex. Let’s just bring back a meaningful estate tax.
I guess it’s another thread but I oppose estate taxes, as well as gift taxes (even though I am not affected by them). I think that a transfer of assets that does not create economic value should not be taxed.
The point of the estate tax is that generational wealth transfers are anti-merit and if we are going to fund a government, it should be by taxing people who haven’t done anything to earn their money.
I don’t know enough yet. I’ll add the book to my list. Or some shorter source.