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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Terry_M

(820 posts)

6. read the article...

Reply to unblock (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 27, 2021, 10:00 PM

Jan 2021

the backup provision is a more painful/less direct way to do the same thing that no one wants but is clearly constitutional.
income tax and capital gains tax is constitutional clearly. an 80% income/capital gains tax on the wealthiest might be really hated but invalidating it would be invalidating the government's power to tax..

so if a 2% wealth tax is ruled unconstitutional under some bizarre argument, then the backstop is a completely legal 'income and capital gains' tax increase. if they say the income and capital gains tax is unconstitutional somehow then they invalidate the federal government's ability to tax so bye bye military spending?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Expert has a brilliant strategy for Democrats to protect their agenda from the Supreme Court [View all] BigBearJohn Jan 2021 OP

Been waiting patiently for nature to take its course. turtleblossom Jan 2021 #1

Clever. But then the Supreme Court would probably invalidate contingency provisions.... unblock Jan 2021 #2

read the article... Terry_M Jan 2021 #6

I know; not what I meant. I mean they would invalidate all contingency provisions unblock Jan 2021 #12

doubt they could Terry_M Jan 2021 #15

Yeah, but corrupt supreme courts don't need valid arguments unblock Jan 2021 #16

What prevents the contingency provision from also being stricken? DarthDem Jan 2021 #3

So, these excerpts lay out an arguement for doing something msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #4

Read the whole article at Raw Story BigBearJohn Jan 2021 #5

I have an ad blocker and Raw story site doesn't like it. msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #11

click through and link to the original article. mopinko Jan 2021 #17

If you can pass a bill containing an 80% marginal tax rate as a "backup" why couldn't you just pass PoliticAverse Jan 2021 #7

You're thinking about it backwards.. Volaris Jan 2021 #10

Could Congress pass a bill with a 10% across the board income tax hike? If not what makes one think. PoliticAverse Jan 2021 #13

Are you asking if they CAN do so? Yes they can. Volaris Jan 2021 #14

If the court is so inclined to ignore the constitutionality of a bill for political reasons tymorial Jan 2021 #8

Original Article MagickMuffin Jan 2021 #9