General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNate Silver-Warren's Wealth Tax Isn't The Slam Dunk Progressives Want It To Be
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Yonnie3 (a host of the General Discussion forum).
There is a strong case that this tax would be a direct tax and therefore would not work under the US Constitution
Link to tweet
The fate of a wealth tax, then, would hinge on whether it counts as a direct tax. Thats a tough question to answer, because the Constitution itself doesnt really define what a direct tax is, beyond the fact that the category includes a poll tax, which is a fixed amount charged for every person. Taxes like tariffs and certain others that cant be fairly distributed on a per-person basis are generally not considered direct taxes. But how all of this would apply to a wealth tax isnt entirely clear. The Supreme Court weighed in on this question more than 100 years ago and not in the wealth taxs favor. In 1895, the court struck down a federal income tax law because it taxed income generated from property, including land and other kinds of personal property, like stocks and bonds. The decision was controversial, and Congress and the states effectively reversed part of it 20 years later with the passage of the 16th Amendment which allowed Congress to tax income without worrying about how evenly it was distributed. But Congresss authority to tax wealth wasnt addressed by the amendment, and the Supreme Court hasnt really returned to the issue in the past century.
Warrens defenders argue, however, that the court simply got it wrong back in 1895, and that a modern wealth tax wouldnt count as a direct tax. But the courts right-leaning justices might approach the tax with a less favorable eye. And the existence of the old precedent could give the courts conservative justices a way to dispatch a wealth tax relatively easily, which gives experts like Daniel Hemel pause. A wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars or, if its struck down by the Supreme Court, it could raise nothing, said Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Thats a really big risk if you care about the redistribution of income and youre trying to figure out how to get it done.
Then there are the critics who have argued that even if a wealth tax could survive a legal battle, it would be a nightmare to implement and might not raise as much money as Warren and Sanders have claimed. Yang, in particular, has homed in recently on the practical shortcomings of a wealth tax. In the October debate, he pointed out that many European countries tried wealth taxes of their own but eventually abandoned them, in part because they proved so difficult to administer.
It's Biden Time!
Vote Joe or Trump won't Go!
maxsolomon
(33,316 posts)Making friends already, I see.
Funtatlaguy
(10,870 posts)Donnie Deutsch just absolutely hates her and says she would be routed by Trump.
I dont know if its them thinking shes too liberal or just has too many female hormones.
But, its getting really old for this white male Warren supporter to keep hearing.
ms liberty
(8,573 posts)Gothmog
(145,150 posts)lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)passes the Senate given the votes needed to break the inevitable filibuster?
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)are subject to filibuster.
And, Warren has also proposed getting rid of the filibuster.
That said, it will be challenged via big money RW groups
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Rules are clear all posts about primary candidates belong in GDP.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...that it didn't follow the wealthy wherever they went (hopping from one country to another is easy to do in Europe). And there were far too many exemptions. Those are fairly easy problems to solve.
Legal scholars argue that a wealth tax would be constitutional. Of course, Trump has appointed a hell of a lot of right wing ideologues to the bench, including 2 Supremes.
That said, a wealth tax by executive order (the only way it would happen) would result in massive backlash, including backlash from tens of millions of poor white ignoramuses.
Turin_C3PO
(13,967 posts)as well as a more progressive income tax. The only problem is our RW Supreme Court May rule a wealth tax unconstitutional.
maxsolomon
(33,316 posts)Does Warren know that?
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)"even one day"? Fuck him. He's lost all credibility with me, and hopefully with the rest of the country.
Yonnie3
(17,434 posts)Please discuss Democratic Primary Candidates (and their platforms) in the Democratic Primaries Forum.
Per the announcement on Feb 20, 2019 by site administrators, all discussion of the Democratic Primaries and candidates belongs in the Democratic Primaries Forum. Please re-post there if you like.