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.
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:
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes....
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 nice location that has now appreciated to (say) $50,0000. 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.
Enough with the polls already and could you not find more choices to add to the list?
The polls are very useful. As someone posted, one rabbit can make a lot of tracks, but with the polls, every poster gets just one vote.
If you want more choices, is someone holding an assault-style weapon to your head, preventing you from posting a poll of your own??? Also if you actually READ the poll, you'll see that there is an 'other' option if the choices I give do not suit you.
Ten choices is already a lot of typing. If you wish to put up a poll with more choices, GO FOR IT, pal. It's going to be a whole lot of typing for you.
I'm all for it. That 2% is tiny. We should remind people that at the height of the idyllic America that Trump wants to take us back to, the rates were 40%-90%.
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?
i think it is self evident that he is wrong. it would not be that hard to right it in such a fashion as to tax the ultra wealthy without raising concerns ref the constitution...
i think it is self evident that he is wrong. it would not be that hard to right it in such a fashion as to tax the ultra wealthy without raising concerns ref the constitution...
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.
Based on what? Do you think that the 16th amendment was unnecessary for imposition of the income tax? The court ruled otherwise.
Quote:
I'm all for it. That 2% is tiny. We should remind people that at the height of the idyllic America that Trump wants to take us back to, the rates were 40%-90%.
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.
i think it is self evident that he is wrong. it would not be that hard to right it in such a fashion as to tax the ultra wealthy without raising concerns ref the constitution...
I'm somehow doubting your credentials as a constitutional scholar. But if you are, you should get in touch with Warren and advisor her on how to 'right' her tax legislation so as to be constitutional.
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.
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.
