The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

News and events of the day
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

https://newrepublic.com/post/173913/sup ... wealth-tax



A great opportunity to drive a fatal stake through the heart of the “Wealth Tax”.
bird
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by bird »

Bludogdem wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:45 pm https://newrepublic.com/post/173913/sup ... wealth-tax



A great opportunity to drive a fatal stake through the heart of the “Wealth Tax”.
Interesting.

Just confiscate all of their wealth.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

*sigh*

I remember when conservatives were AGAINST “legislating from the bench”. Just like the argument of “state’s rights” it is nothing but bullshit.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

bird wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:23 am Interesting.

Just confiscate all of their wealth.
Not a Constitutional power.
bird
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by bird »

Bludogdem wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:43 am Not a Constitutional power.
Irrelevant.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

bird wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 12:09 pmIrrelevant.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m thinking the constitution is certainly relevant. Maybe not to your way of thinking but relevant nonetheless.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:27 am *sigh*

I remember when conservatives were AGAINST “legislating from the bench”. Just like the argument of “state’s rights” it is nothing but bullshit.
Not legislating from the bench. There is an injured party. A citizen was forced to pay taxes on an unrealized gain. Legitimate issue to resolve. Fortunately it will stop additional unconstitutional foolishness.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:27 pm Not legislating from the bench. There is an injured party. A citizen was forced to pay taxes on an unrealized gain. Legitimate issue to resolve. Fortunately it will stop additional unconstitutional foolishness.
Making a decision that would render a wealth tax illegal would be legislating from the bench.
bird
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by bird »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:11 pm I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m thinking the constitution is certainly relevant. Maybe not to your way of thinking but relevant nonetheless.
Both posts were sarcasm.

The SCOTUS legislating from the bench is horrific when conservatives hate it and perfectly acceptable when conservatives approve of the made up nonsense.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

bird wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 4:19 pm Both posts were sarcasm.

The SCOTUS legislating from the bench is horrific when conservatives hate it and perfectly acceptable when conservatives approve of the made up nonsense.
I dunno. When folks create law from thin air and create rights where there are none in the document or in the body of law, that’s legislating from the bench. Simply ruling on whether it’s constitutional to tax “wealth” and/or unrealized gains rather than income seems to be within their scope.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 4:50 pm I dunno. When folks create law from thin air and create rights where there are none in the document or in the body of law, that’s legislating from the bench. Simply ruling on whether it’s constitutional to tax “wealth” and/or unrealized gains rather than income seems to be within their scope.
So thanks for admitting you're quite selective. Hypocrisy doesn't bother you at all. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to tax.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:16 pm So thanks for admitting you're quite selective. Hypocrisy doesn't bother you at all. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to tax.
So thanks for admitting you don’t really know what the Constitution says.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:24 pm So thanks for admitting you don’t really know what the Constitution says.
I sure do. You're the one that never reads anything, you revel in your ignorance. I bet you haven't actually READ the Constitution - you just read what the right tells you it says.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:44 pm I sure do. You're the one that never reads anything, you revel in your ignorance. I bet you haven't actually READ the Constitution - you just read what the right tells you it says.
The 16th amendment gave Congress the ability to tax income. Accumulated wealth and or unrealized gains are not the same as income. The ability to levy taxes has limits.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:31 pm The 16th amendment gave Congress the ability to tax income. Accumulated wealth and or unrealized gains are not the same as income. The ability to levy taxes has limits.
Maybe you don’t know about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:34 pm Maybe you don’t know about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
Here’s what’s funny, Joe. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913. I guess we didn’t have taxes or national income to pay for government before then.

What a maroon! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:37 pm Here’s what’s funny, Joe. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913. I guess we didn’t have taxes or national income to pay for government before then.

What a maroon! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
if a you say the Federal Government had the unlimited right to tax income prior to the 16th amendment, perhaps you can explain why such an amendment would have been necessary? Seems redundant to me based on your theory. Maybe the right to tax income prior to the 16th amendment wasn't as clear as you pretend.

Post 16th amendment, current constitutional law, the 16th amendment clearly says income. Doesn't say wealth/accumulated wealth/unrealized gains. Says income and taxable income has been pretty well defined as realized income for decades. So there is some question as to whether the government has a right to tax an individuals accumulated net worth or unrealized gains. Not to mention the fact that such an idea in this country is unworkable. Case in point, the government would have had to pay out refunds for unrealized losses back in 2008 and 2009 as well as unrealized losses in 2021.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:48 pm if a you say the Federal Government had the unlimited right to tax income prior to the 16th amendment, perhaps you can explain why such an amendment would have been necessary? Seems redundant to me based on your theory. Maybe the right to tax income prior to the 16th amendment wasn't as clear as you pretend.

Post 16th amendment, current constitutional law, the 16th amendment clearly says income. Doesn't say wealth/accumulated wealth/unrealized gains. Says income and taxable income has been pretty well defined as realized income for decades. So there is some question as to whether the government has a right to tax an individuals accumulated net worth or unrealized gains. Not to mention the fact that such an idea in this country is unworkable. Case in point, the government would have had to pay out refunds for unrealized losses back in 2008 and 2009 as well as unrealized losses in 2021.
As usual, you don't have a clue, do you? You didn't know the Constitution itself addressed taxation, did you? Wipe that egg off your face.

You don't have any idea why the 16th Amendment came down, do you?

You don't know your history at all, and you're spewing off out of your ignorance. You'd have to know about the Income Tax Act of 1894, and the extremely bad Supreme Court 1895 Decision Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, which hurt the country's ability to fund the government. The decision was so damned unpopular the American people voted in the 16th Amendment.

As to a wealth tax, there are those who say that 1895 decision precludes a wealth tax, and that would certainly be legislating from the bench, as it should be the decision of the legislative branch, but then, again, you LIKE legislating from the bench when it suits you.

And since you're so damned ignorant, and so willingly ignorant, you just don't have a clue. But there is also precedent. Via NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019 ... titutional
In 1794, President George Washington signed into law what might be considered the first federal wealth tax. It was a tax on property: horse-drawn carriages. We have an entire episode about this tax and the subsequent legal battle over it.

The Supreme Court upheld the carriage tax. The justices called the apportionment rule "absurd" and "radically wrong." One justice said the rule should only be adopted in cases where "it can reasonably apply," and if it results in wildly unequal tax rates between the states, it's not reasonable. Another justice said that this provision in the Constitution was entirely about appeasing the South, which wanted to make it hard to tax the pillars of its slave-based economy. That's why he said the direct tax rule only clearly applied to taxes on land and slaves, and it "ought not to be extended" beyond this.

Scholars like Ackerman point to these opinions as supporting the constitutional case for a wealth tax. After the ruling, Ackerman says, the Supreme Court upheld every single tax that came across its radar. This included the income tax in 1880. He considers Pollock to be an aberration. It led to a public outcry, and he says, the Supreme Court backtracked, upholding the constitutionality of the inheritance tax in 1900. Pollock, he says, was then formally "repudiated" by the 16th Amendment, which said the income tax would not have to follow the direct tax rule.
Sponsor Message

But the 16th Amendment clearly says "income" tax. It doesn't say "wealth" or "assets" or "property." Constitutional scholars like Erik Jensen believe that's a problem for a wealth tax.

The Roberts Court

Without an amendment, the Supreme Court has the final word on the constitutionality of the wealth tax, and Jensen believes the current court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, would likely knock it down. In 2012, the Roberts Court considered the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate, which required Americans buy health insurance. Roberts upheld the mandate by declaring it a form of tax — and that led him down the path to revisiting the direct tax rule.

Roberts acknowledged the carriage tax in 1796 was upheld because the Supreme Court reasoned "apportioning such a tax would make little sense," and that this "narrow view" of what the direct tax rule applied to "persisted for a century." But then Roberts gets to Pollock, and he says while the ruling was "overturned by the 16th Amendment," the Supreme Court "continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

Jensen believes this view is a problem for wealth tax supporters. "What is a tax on wealth other than a tax on property?" he says. "If you are going to argue as Professor Ackerman and others have done that an unapportioned tax on wealth is constitutionally valid, you just have to deal with the Chief Justice Roberts' opinion."
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:07 pm As usual, you don't have a clue, do you? You didn't know the Constitution itself addressed taxation, did you? Wipe that egg off your face.

You don't have any idea why the 16th Amendment came down, do you?

You don't know your history at all, and you're spewing off out of your ignorance. You'd have to know about the Income Tax Act of 1894, and the extremely bad Supreme Court 1895 Decision Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, which hurt the country's ability to fund the government. The decision was so damned unpopular the American people voted in the 16th Amendment.

As to a wealth tax, there are those who say that 1895 decision precludes a wealth tax, and that would certainly be legislating from the bench, as it should be the decision of the legislative branch, but then, again, you LIKE legislating from the bench when it suits you.

And since you're so damned ignorant, and so willingly ignorant, you just don't have a clue. But there is also precedent. Via NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019 ... titutional
Thanks for the history lesson. You took a lot of words to basically come to the same conclusion as I. There were questions and problems with the question of taxation prior to the 16th amendment. The lengthy article you posted lays that out quite clearly. And as I said post 16th amendment, there is still the open question of what is “income” and whether things other than income such as accumulated wealth and unrealized gains may be taxed. Hence this is certainly not legislating from the bench but interpreting a question of law. What is “income” post 16th amendment. Does the government have the right or ability under the Constitution as amended to tax things other than income such as accumulated wealth and unrealized gains. My guess is no.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:58 pm Thanks for the history lesson. You took a lot of words to basically come to the same conclusion as I. There were questions and problems with the question of taxation prior to the 16th amendment. The lengthy article you posted lays that out quite clearly. And as I said post 16th amendment, there is still the open question of what is “income” and whether things other than income such as accumulated wealth and unrealized gains may be taxed. Hence this is certainly not legislating from the bench but interpreting a question of law. What is “income” post 16th amendment. Does the government have the right or ability under the Constitution as amended to tax things other than income such as accumulated wealth and unrealized gains. My guess is no.
You didn't even know what the Constitution said about taxation. You pwned yourself. It was hilarious to see.

And your guesses, based upon your flaming ignorance, is worthless.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:00 pm You didn't even know what the Constitution said about taxation. You pwned yourself. It was hilarious to see.

And your guesses, based upon your flaming ignorance, is worthless.
My knowledge of the history of taxation goes back to the 16th amendment. When I studied taxation in college that’s where we started. I know and you know that a wealth tax in this country will either need a favorable ruling in SCOTUS which your post admits is a long shot or it needs a Constitutional amendment. If an income tax required an amendment then a wealth tax which is much broader, more complicated isn’t a lay up.

If this were as clear cut from a constitutional perspective we wouldn’t have needed the 16th amendment and we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.
bird
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by bird »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 4:50 pm I dunno. When folks create law from thin air and create rights where there are none in the document or in the body of law, that’s legislating from the bench. Simply ruling on whether it’s constitutional to tax “wealth” and/or unrealized gains rather than income seems to be within their scope.
All legislation is created from thin air. The constitution forbids exactly three things. The bill of rights adds a bit more but beyond that? Any SCOTUS decision regarding constitutionality is properly with little acknowledgement of irony called an opinion. It is the personal opinion of the justices with, usually, no actual relationship to the constitution.

Your last statement is, like SCOTUS decisions, an opinion. It relationship to the question carries as much weight as any individual.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

bird wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:20 pm All legislation is created from thin air. The constitution forbids exactly three things. The bill of rights adds a bit more but beyond that? Any SCOTUS decision regarding constitutionality is properly with little acknowledgement of irony called an opinion. It is the personal opinion of the justices with, usually, no actual relationship to the constitution.

Your last statement is, like SCOTUS decisions, an opinion. It relationship to the question carries as much weight as any individual.
Yeah. We all got opinions. You have yours. I have mine. I guess soon we will learn what SCOTUS thinks. We shall see.
gounion
Posts: 17051
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 11:34 pm Yeah. We all got opinions. You have yours. I have mine. I guess soon we will learn what SCOTUS thinks. We shall see.
Yeah, but yours are Donald Trump talking points.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:32 am Yeah, but yours are Donald Trump talking points.
Yeah. You’ve said that before and yet you repeatedly failed to back it up. You aren’t any better or more factual with your “gleaning” than you are with telling the truth. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Post Reply