3 ms·

Why are wealth taxes unconstitutional?

ke88y 3y ago
Property taxes are not unconstitutional. Particularly state property taxes, which under even the most revisionist possible reading are very clearly not prohibited by the US constitution. In fact, at least one type of property tax is specifically enumerated in the constitution (Section 9)! So the notion that the founding fathers believed property taxes were unconstitutional -- while also enumerating a specific type of property tax in the constitution -- is ridiculous. IMO, if an extreme SCOTUS attempted to kill all forms of property taxes, a collective decision by legislatures and the executive to selectively ignore Marbury v Madison would be a more likely outcome than the end of property taxes. In general: the idea that the judiciary can "strike down" unconstitutional laws is much more tenuous than most of the things that fringe constitutional theories consider to be unconstitutional. I think this is where fantasies like ending property taxes or sovereign citizen stuff fall apart: if we're going to stretch the meaning of the constitution that far, then why continue putting so much unenumerated power into the judiciary? Also: taxing income without taxing property is ridiculously stupid public policy. We should be doing exactly the opposite: rewarding hard work and severely punishing lazy lay-abouts who sit around on generational properties instead of contributing to society by working and earning an income.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  Calling tariffs, what I assume you are referring too, a property tax is a bit of a stretch.
  - ke88y 3y ago
    No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereby directly addressing potential misunderstandings such as yours. Section 9 VERY explicitly and VERY carefully allows for a property tax which is not a duty. Why would the framers include this clause, as written, if they believed it unconstitutional for Congress to enact property taxes? At the very least you would expect an exceptional clause if that were the case. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. State property taxes existed in the US for 100 years before and also during the constitutional convention. It strains credulity to claim that the framers intended for state property taxes to be unconstitutional while also not enumerating this fact and even specifically enumerating limits on taxation of certain types of property. Furthermore, the legislative and executive actions of constitutional convention members, within their respective commonwealths and states, clearly demonstrate that the framers did not intend to prohibit taxation of property particularly by non-federal governments (or even by the federal government, for that matter, as long as funds were equally distributed). Again, it strains credulity to claim that a framer would write a constitution intended to prevent states from taxing property, and then go serve in a state legislative assembly or executive that approved taxation based on the value of estates or properties. And we haven't even made it to the 9th amendment. Again: I'm much more willing to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistaken interpretation of the constitution than I am to accept the US constitution can be somehow interpreted to disallow state property taxes. To be blunt, if SCOTUS tried to do something this blatantly ridiculous and made-up, most state governments and courts would simply ignore the ruling.

Property taxes are not unconstitutional. Particularly state property taxes, which under even the most revisionist possible reading are very clearly not prohibited by the US constitution. In fact, at least one type of property tax is specifically enumerated in the constitution (Section 9)! So the notion that the founding fathers believed property taxes were unconstitutional -- while also enumerating a specific type of property tax in the constitution -- is ridiculous. IMO, if an extreme SCOTUS attempted to kill all forms of property taxes, a collective decision by legislatures and the executive to selectively ignore Marbury v Madison would be a more likely outcome than the end of property taxes. In general: the idea that the judiciary can "strike down" unconstitutional laws is much more tenuous than most of the things that fringe constitutional theories consider to be unconstitutional. I think this is where fantasies like ending property taxes or sovereign citizen stuff fall apart: if we're going to stretch the meaning of the constitution that far, then why continue putting so much unenumerated power into the judiciary? Also: taxing income without taxing property is ridiculously stupid public policy. We should be doing exactly the opposite: rewarding hard work and severely punishing lazy lay-abouts who sit around on generational properties instead of contributing to society by working and earning an income.

tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Calling tariffs, what I assume you are referring too, a property tax is a bit of a stretch.
- ke88y 3y ago
  No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereby directly addressing potential misunderstandings such as yours. Section 9 VERY explicitly and VERY carefully allows for a property tax which is not a duty. Why would the framers include this clause, as written, if they believed it unconstitutional for Congress to enact property taxes? At the very least you would expect an exceptional clause if that were the case. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. State property taxes existed in the US for 100 years before and also during the constitutional convention. It strains credulity to claim that the framers intended for state property taxes to be unconstitutional while also not enumerating this fact and even specifically enumerating limits on taxation of certain types of property. Furthermore, the legislative and executive actions of constitutional convention members, within their respective commonwealths and states, clearly demonstrate that the framers did not intend to prohibit taxation of property particularly by non-federal governments (or even by the federal government, for that matter, as long as funds were equally distributed). Again, it strains credulity to claim that a framer would write a constitution intended to prevent states from taxing property, and then go serve in a state legislative assembly or executive that approved taxation based on the value of estates or properties. And we haven't even made it to the 9th amendment. Again: I'm much more willing to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistaken interpretation of the constitution than I am to accept the US constitution can be somehow interpreted to disallow state property taxes. To be blunt, if SCOTUS tried to do something this blatantly ridiculous and made-up, most state governments and courts would simply ignore the ruling.