Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support the 'wealth tax' proposal?
liberal: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 13 13.83%
liberal: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 1 1.06%
liberal: no, dump this idea. 5 5.32%
conservative: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 5 5.32%
conservative: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 0 0%
conservative: no, dump this idea. 28 29.79%
independent: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 9 9.57%
independent: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 1 1.06%
independent: no, dump this idea. 29 30.85%
other (please explain below) 3 3.19%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2019, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Id argue that you are wrong. Wealth taxes arent specifically allowed like income taxes are.


So...tack on a income tax based upon the wealth that a person owns. Voila.
We already have that, don't we? If you are able to produce income from assets that you own, that income is subject to being taxed. What am I missing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Near Falls Lake
4,234 posts, read 3,151,903 times
Reputation: 4664
I'd be willing to have the wealthy pay a little more.......if we are willing to reduce our spending!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,562 posts, read 10,318,711 times
Reputation: 8252
What's unconstitutional about it? Congress has the power to tax and spend. Period. That's in the Constitution - Article I, Section 8.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
What's unconstitutional about it? Congress has the power to tax and spend. Period. That's in the Constitution - Article I, Section 8.
I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but take a look at the WSJ piece from post #1.

Quote:
it would violate both the 16th Amendment (failing as an income tax) and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (failing because it is an unapportioned direct tax).
... Warren’s tax is quite obviously a tax on property, which the courts have repeatedly held constitutes a direct tax.
Again, why would the 16th amendment have been needed for the federal income tax, but no new amendment needed for a wealth tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:13 PM
 
45,137 posts, read 26,325,093 times
Reputation: 24874
Bring it on and quadruple the spending too, time to crash this spaceship
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167
As the WSJ piece says, Article I, section 9, clause 4 says:

Quote:
4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Warren's tax would violate this, just as the income tax did, which was why the 16th Amendment was required for the income tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:36 PM
 
Location: SoCal
3,877 posts, read 3,877,036 times
Reputation: 3258
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Based on what? Do you think that the 16th amendment was unnecessary for imposition of the income tax? The court ruled otherwise.



The income tax in 1913 was 0% under $20,000; 1% on up to $20K income(about $500 million in 2018 dollars); 2% up to $50K (~$12.5 million today), and a top rate of 6% over $500K($125 million today). I don't know how you prevent the same ratcheting that has happened with the income tax to happen with a wealth tax.

The 91% rate in the 1950s is a canard. No one actually paid that rate, because the structure of the income tax was very different then. Even Warren's advisor Saez has written about this.
In the early 1910s taxes were low pre ww1. Taxes went up right after that. In the 1950s taxes were double on average what they are today. Of course Regan came along, and changed it and we know that ended in disaster. The country has always been it's most prosperous when taxes were High. https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean1the1 View Post
In the early 1910s taxes were low pre ww1. Taxes went up right after that. In the 1950s taxes were double on average what they are today. Of course Regan came along, and changed it and we know that ended in disaster. The country has always been it's most prosperous when taxes were High. https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx
You are right that taxes went up during WWI. But they did start out very low, as posted above. Zero for all Americans other than the very wealthy, just as with Warren's proposal.

Taxes were not 'double on average' in the 1950s. The progressivity was just a few points higher than today. That is according to Emmanuel Saez, who is advising Warren, and his usual research partner Thomas Piketty. There was a nominal top rate of 91%, but few if any paid that due to the different system of deductions back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 06:49 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,525,305 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/eliz...c-advisor.html

Her proposal is an annual 2% tax on those with over $50 million in assets, and 3% for over $1 billion. According to Ben Shapiro, a Harvard law grad and very sharp on Constitutional matters, this is a non-starter. The 16th Amendment of the Constitution states:



The 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913 because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have power to impose an income tax. Ergo, it is pretty obvious that yet another amendment would be required for a wealth tax. Warren is being advised by rock-star economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkley.

Here is more analysis from the Wall Street Journal. Evidently they really want to nip this in the bud, because it is not behind a paywall as usual for the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabe...ax-11548442306

There are other problems as pointed out by Ben Shapiro. Suppose you bought a house in 1970 for $1,00,000 in a prime location that has now appreciated to (say) $50,000,000. Under Warren's plan you now owe a $1 million annual tax on your house. Say you have $10 million in other assets. After 10 years of this, you're broke.

What do you think?
Who doesn’t want other people’s money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2019, 07:10 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,182,912 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/eliz...c-advisor.html

Her proposal is an annual 2% tax on those with over $50 million in assets, and 3% for over $1 billion. According to Ben Shapiro, a Harvard law grad and very sharp on Constitutional matters, this is a non-starter. The 16th Amendment of the Constitution states:



The 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913 because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have power to impose an income tax. Ergo, it is pretty obvious that yet another amendment would be required for a wealth tax. Warren is being advised by rock-star economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkley.

Here is more analysis from the Wall Street Journal. Evidently they really want to nip this in the bud, because it is not behind a paywall as usual for the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabe...ax-11548442306

There are other problems as pointed out by Ben Shapiro. Suppose you bought a house in 1970 for $1,00,000 in a prime location that has now appreciated to (say) $50,000,000. Under Warren's plan you now owe a $1 million annual tax on your house. Say you have $10 million in other assets. After 10 years of this, you're broke.

What do you think?
Stupid. The money will leave the US instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top