Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax--unconstitutional. (wage, generations, legal, leader)
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.