4 ms·

Sorry, I was referring to Warren's planned wealth tax, which is unconstitutional under the 16th Amendment. I support antitrust laws, and they have done a lot of

by kart23 7y ago

Sorry, I was referring to Warren's planned wealth tax, which is unconstitutional under the 16th Amendment. I support antitrust laws, and they have done a lot of good for America. https://taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/ https://taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionalit...

mattnewton 7y ago
> “But it’s not a slam-dunk case, as the precedents go both ways, and it’s not an area the Court has opined on for a long time.” Sounds like she might have a case, rather than just naked pandering. I think it’s good to have a variety of intellectual positions and to work the best possible policies, and to ask if we would be better off without some some sacred cows
- kart23 7y ago
  It is a slam dunk case. If you read all the articles for the wealth tax, they argue it isn't a direct tax simply because nobody knows what a direct tax is. Or that the tax actually taxes income. Both of those are wrong. Wealth tax is a direct tax, since it is paid by an individual on their possessions, rather than any transaction. The constitution only allows a direct tax on INCOME, not possessions. If I have 100 million dollars in cash, do not make any money, I would still owe 1 million dollars under the wealth tax. Is that an income tax? No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a-response-to-professor-bruce-ackerman/ https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-wealth-tax-constitutional.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren... This article, for the wealth tax, basically makes the argument that the justices should stay true to their 'originalist' principles and uphold it, rather than actually examining the law. I think this is the best precedent for something like this: When the court ruled that a federal tax on property was unconstitutional, which is similar to what Warren is trying to do. The court has ruled on this in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > ...Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property...
bduerst 7y ago
Even that article shows it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be, because the 16th amendment covers direct taxing of income. Like everything involving new laws and the constitution, it will fall to the surpreme court to decide whether or not it is constitutional.
0xffff2 7y ago
Your own link says that opinions are mixed, not that it's unconstitutional.
- kart23 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property... including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds... Its unconstitutional.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers disagree on this subject. Seeing as how that quote is part of a case that predates the amendment, it's not at all clear to me what if any bearing it has. I'm guessing this is one of the many, many areas of law where the only way to find out if it's constitutional with any degree of certainty is to pass the law and see what the Supreme Court says.
raldi 7y ago
The 16th Amendment doesn't prohibit anything; it only allows things. You could argue that the preceding parts of the constitution prohibit a wealth tax, though, and that the 16th doesn't carve out space for one.
- kart23 7y ago
  Yes, and if something is not allowed in the constitution, then the federal government does not have the power to do it. The states could do it, but I find the likelihood of all 50 states adopting a wealth tax to be extremely unlikely. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-x https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amen...
  - raldi 7y ago
    If it's popular enough to get through the House and Senate, it would have to be drawing widespread public support across the political spectrum. At that point, there would be a lot of pressure on state legislatures to ratify an amendment. Anyone who voted against it would be putting a target on their back in the next election.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- kart23 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property... including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds... The court has clearly ruled on this issue in the past.

by kart23 7y ago

mattnewton 7y ago

> “But it’s not a slam-dunk case, as the precedents go both ways, and it’s not an area the Court has opined on for a long time.” Sounds like she might have a case, rather than just naked pandering. I think it’s good to have a variety of intellectual positions and to work the best possible policies, and to ask if we would be better off without some some sacred cows

kart23 7y ago
It is a slam dunk case. If you read all the articles for the wealth tax, they argue it isn't a direct tax simply because nobody knows what a direct tax is. Or that the tax actually taxes income. Both of those are wrong. Wealth tax is a direct tax, since it is paid by an individual on their possessions, rather than any transaction. The constitution only allows a direct tax on INCOME, not possessions. If I have 100 million dollars in cash, do not make any money, I would still owe 1 million dollars under the wealth tax. Is that an income tax? No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a-response-to-professor-bruce-ackerman/ https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-wealth-tax-constitutional.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren... This article, for the wealth tax, basically makes the argument that the justices should stay true to their 'originalist' principles and uphold it, rather than actually examining the law. I think this is the best precedent for something like this: When the court ruled that a federal tax on property was unconstitutional, which is similar to what Warren is trying to do. The court has ruled on this in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > ...Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property...

bduerst 7y ago

Even that article shows it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be, because the 16th amendment covers direct taxing of income. Like everything involving new laws and the constitution, it will fall to the surpreme court to decide whether or not it is constitutional.

0xffff2 7y ago

Your own link says that opinions are mixed, not that it's unconstitutional.

kart23 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property... including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds... Its unconstitutional.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers disagree on this subject. Seeing as how that quote is part of a case that predates the amendment, it's not at all clear to me what if any bearing it has. I'm guessing this is one of the many, many areas of law where the only way to find out if it's constitutional with any degree of certainty is to pass the law and see what the Supreme Court says.

raldi 7y ago

The 16th Amendment doesn't prohibit anything; it only allows things. You could argue that the preceding parts of the constitution prohibit a wealth tax, though, and that the 16th doesn't carve out space for one.

kart23 7y ago
Yes, and if something is not allowed in the constitution, then the federal government does not have the power to do it. The states could do it, but I find the likelihood of all 50 states adopting a wealth tax to be extremely unlikely. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-x https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amen...
- raldi 7y ago
  If it's popular enough to get through the House and Senate, it would have to be drawing widespread public support across the political spectrum. At that point, there would be a lot of pressure on state legislatures to ratify an amendment. Anyone who voted against it would be putting a target on their back in the next election.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
kart23 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property... including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds... The court has clearly ruled on this issue in the past.