By the way, 10% taxes on boats.
Won’t someone think of the poor, hard-working fishermen?
How much of the mega wealthy’s money is invested in the national economy then?
Adjacent to that point, I did find this break down of where people keep their money:
CNBC: Where the super rich keep their money
But it doesn’t discuss how much is foreign holdings.
Sure. Just like my house isn’t sitting idle. It’s doing societally useful work by providing a home for my family. But I still get taxed on its value.
Again: there already is a wealth tax. But it primarily apples to the upper middle class (say 70th percentile to 95th), and is phased out above that.
It’s been pointed out a half dozen times that the legality of a federal wealth tax is different than a local property tax. Why is that not sinking in?
To put a bit of a finer point on this in case it got lost in the discussion, there is no real question that a tax on Real Property (land) would be a direct tax and subject to apportionment. In fact, that is at least one part of Hylton that remains good law. And it seemed self-evident to that Court and not a point of any real contention (and at least two of the participating Justices were signers of the Constitution). So while an unapportioned Federal tax on Personal Property would presumably necessitate overturning Pollock, a Federal unapportioned Property Tax would necessitate overturning Hylton as well and basically discarding our entire jurisprudential history in that area.
Because I’m not talking about legality. I’m talking about the moral argument. People who are saying we shouldn’t tax wealth “at rest” aren’t making a legal argument.
I do not remotely dispute that a federal wealth tax is not Constitutional (In fact, I pointed that out in my first post in this thread ;))
I think the “unconstitutional” argument has been extremely poorly cited in this thread, as far as I can see. We’ve got the American Bar Association published policy paper arguing that it is Constitutional by the Chair in Corporate and Business Law at the University of Texas and a few Dopers saying it obviously isn’t. Guess which side I’m currently leaning?
Because there are two discussions, one on methods of determining wealth, and the philosophy of taxing wealth, for which property tax is a good analogy. The other discussion is about the legality of a wealth tax.
I… honestly don’t know. This post suggests that you think it is constitutional, but you just reprimanded me for failing to realize that it’s not? This might be a time to dispense with nuance and just state your position clearly.
FWIW, I think it’s unconstitutional because as a direct tax, it should be apportioned among the states. But I’m not a lawyer, so I could easily be wrong.
Did you actually read the cited article or any of the cases mentioned? Because providing cites is kind of pointless if the person asking won’t read or understand them. So the ABA posted a legal scholar’s opinion piece. So what? That is not an endorsement by the ABA of the author’s views and it is the opinion of one of the hundreds of Constitutional scholars in this country.
The fact is that among the hundreds and hundreds of law journal articles published each year Prof. Johnson’s was one of the few, if not only, in recent history addressing this topic at all, let alone taking this particular position. Presumably this is because the legal issues have been settled law for over 120 years and his views are also presumably in the minority. The Professor’s argument has only gained notoriety recently because of the current discussions of implementing such a tax and because it’s just about the only scholarly work proponents can find which echoes their position. It also displays the ignorance and possibly subtle bias on the parts of journalists and pundits when they present such an opinion as if it’s unanimous or even widely-held among legal scholars and without any contrary perspectives.
But even Prof. Johnson in his original law journal article,* which this opinion piece is a truncated version of, admits that the current Court disagrees with his conclusion and instead has affirmed its long-standing holding. In Sebelius, in finding the individual mandate was a tax (though not a direct tax), the Court noted:
That narrow view of what a direct tax might be per-sisted for a century [the Court here is referring to Hylton, discussed in previous paragraph]. In 1880, for example, we explained that “direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 218–219 (1920).
And:
The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States. (Can’t find a paginated version online for proper cite. It’s in part III C.)
So what does it matter what a single (or however many) legal scholar believes if a majority of SCOTUS disagrees? And there is no guarantee that said majority would be confined to the so-called Conservative wing of the Court.
If you think it’s relevant to answering the OP’s questions (I don’t), let us know if you find out.
Oh, you just seemed so confident in your “this isn’t true”, I kinda assumed you knew what you were talking about. Mea culpa.
Basically its a lead balloon thats not going to fly and should be looked at as a position paper and not an actual this is going to happen if she gets elected. Legality should not be as issue, as congress is the body that makes it legal regardless of what ever anyone else thinks.
I do. I’m also trying to stay on-topic. If you’re curious and have trouble with Google, I might respond to a GQ thread.
Congress has no power to override the Supreme Court declaring a law unconstitutional. It is the Court which ultimately decides what is legal (regardless of whatever anyone else thinks) in the US system and not Congress.
Congress can always amend the constitution, or pass new legislation that addresses the court’s objection.
Occasionally SCOTUS will explain the precise element that makes the legislation problematic in such a way that Congress can rework the new legislation enough to get the desired result without including that element, but Congress cannot just amend the constitution - they will need a supermajority of state legislatures to agree.
Thank you. Well stated.
Ok, buddy. I’ll get right on that.