Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(51,973 posts)
32. not sure it's ever been tried, so i don't know if there's any precedent.
Fri Jan 25, 2019, 12:21 PM
Jan 2019

but it seems pretty obviously unconstitutional, at least as simplistically stated. other than the income tax, made ok by the 16th amendment, taxes generally have to be apportioned per capita, which a wealth tax clearly would not be.


now, a more subtle approach would be not to actually tax wealth directly, but to modify the income tax based on wealth. there are many ways one could imagine doing this, and there's more of an argument that at least some of these might pass constitutional muster.

but these wouldn't be true wealth taxes, this would only shift the income tax in the direction of hitting wealthier people more.

an example might be to completely disallow all mortgage interest deductions for anyone who owns more than one home. it's not clear to me that even that is constitutional, but certainly there's a much better case for it. however, it doesn't necessarily get at what i, at least, think of when i think of a "wealth tax". it would affect some more middle-class people (say, who moved into a smaller house and are renting out their old house) while leaving some super-rich people unaffected (they can simply avoid owning multiple homes).

more vlyons Jan 2019 #1
MORE. n/t Brainstormy Jan 2019 #2
Her Wealth Tax swings me over. safeinOhio Jan 2019 #3
More...If it makes her less electable then we are well and truly fucked anyway BeyondGeography Jan 2019 #4
It all depends on how it is packaged and sold. nycbos Jan 2019 #5
I always thought we should ask for safeinOhio Jan 2019 #11
And, she can't back down from it Cosmocat Jan 2019 #18
As long as she can defend it in clear and unequivocal terms, I say more... doompatrol39 Jan 2019 #6
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than poorest half of US exboyfil Jan 2019 #14
Wealthy right wing billionaires will try to destroy her over it DBoon Jan 2019 #7
More, for me... Wounded Bear Jan 2019 #8
Who would it apply to ? rickford66 Jan 2019 #9
Really good question about the practicality exboyfil Jan 2019 #13
It only applies to households with a net worth above $50 million and the tax is on Autumn Jan 2019 #15
Read this article. It addresses many of these questions. rgbecker Jan 2019 #16
it won't apply to anyone, because it's unconstitutional. unblock Jan 2019 #19
Where was it ruled unconstitutional? kcr Jan 2019 #24
not sure it's ever been tried, so i don't know if there's any precedent. unblock Jan 2019 #32
I wonder if Elizabeth Warren knows any Constitutional scholars she could consult. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2019 #35
i'm sure she could think of one or two unblock Jan 2019 #37
How does Article one figure in here? Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2019 #38
my understanding is that generally federal taxes have to be per capita unblock Jan 2019 #39
Didn't they just change tax exemptions and rates without a constitutional amendment? Autumn Jan 2019 #29
the *income* tax is constitutional, thanks to the 16th amendment. unblock Jan 2019 #31
Your contention is refuted PDittie Jan 2019 #42
it's not "refuted". unblock Jan 2019 #44
Well, absent the PDittie Jan 2019 #45
wow, that was a pointlessly obnoxious post. unblock Jan 2019 #56
I think it is an idea that should have been discussed exboyfil Jan 2019 #10
More. I was kind of indifferent to her before but I think it's a great idea. Luciferous Jan 2019 #12
More. I think people have wanted this for a long time but too many dems SweetieD Jan 2019 #17
Also, even as a negotiation tactic....more of this please..... doompatrol39 Jan 2019 #20
Most of you are too focused on what YOU like! How are the folks that elected Trump likely to vote? Towlie Jan 2019 #21
So we should test market our ideas with the very rich first? BeyondGeography Jan 2019 #22
Neither. Policies don't really sway voters (nt) Recursion Jan 2019 #23
Sadly this is true. EllieBC Jan 2019 #28
I think it helps her. The gullible public is finally moving on from the "Job Creators" fantasy jalan48 Jan 2019 #25
More! lark Jan 2019 #26
It all depends on how the message is crafted. EllieBC Jan 2019 #27
It's already crafted. Her bullet points are like "think what we could do with that money." Towlie Jan 2019 #40
IIRC, her proposal wouldn't kick in until $50 million. Bleacher Creature Jan 2019 #30
Her electability will not rest on only one thing. PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2019 #33
Frame how the proceeds will be used Bayard Jan 2019 #34
I would say more peggysue2 Jan 2019 #36
I doubt it will make much of a difference DFW Jan 2019 #41
More, imho DeminPennswoods Jan 2019 #43
More. If explained right and she is a former teacher karynnj Jan 2019 #46
more Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2019 #47
I think it really depends on how she presents her ideas Crunchy Frog Jan 2019 #48
Depends on how she frames it. LiberalFighter Jan 2019 #49
99% of voters are not in the wealthiest 1%. lagomorph777 Jan 2019 #50
More. Much more. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #52
If the wealthiest want to acquire most of the wealth, then they should democratisphere Jan 2019 #53
More. shanny Jan 2019 #54
No impact oberliner Jan 2019 #55
More, I full support it and I think that current structural issues (aka Trump needing to be removed) Celerity Jan 2019 #57
more questionseverything Jan 2019 #58
She is doing it wrong. She should sell it as deficit reduction to save Social Security & Medicare KWR65 Jan 2019 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does Elizabeth Warren's "...»Reply #32