2y ago

The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in 2021, two of the Moores’ lawyers also declared unambiguously that the lawsuit “stands to slam shut the door on a federal wealth tax like the one Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to enact.” They made a direct pitch to “the courts” to hear the Moores’ case “now” to make it easier to block a wealth tax in the future.

politics @lemmy.world

L4sBot @lemmy.world

BOT

2y ago

The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

newrepublic.com /post/173913/supreme-court-may-pre-emptively-ban-federal-wealth-tax

28 comments

Supreme court is blatantly corrupt at this point.
- You have the right to choose who you do business with... unless you're a university; then you'll do as we tell you.
- This point!?
  It's been blatantly corrupt for a long ass time.
  
  The SCOTUS has been a force resisting civil rights and good governance for pretty much all of American history.
  Too many middle-aged and older people these days grew up under the Warren court, but the Warren court was a fucking blip. An anomaly. An aberration.
  They looked at the clock of the court, saw the sun high in the sky, saw the hands pointed at noon, and thought to themselves "Ah, everything is working fine." But the clock's dead broken and has been for centuries.
Ok, then force capital gains to be realized annually, and make the capital gains rates more progressive.
This country is exhausting.
We need to re-seat this illegitimate court.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression, deception and death. It always has been. There is no such thing as "good conservatism".
Thomas can’t have his sugar daddy cutting him off now, y’know
- My understanding of the article is that the Moores are suing probably based on the difference between wealth and income.
  The Trump policy stipulates that if you own 10+% of a foreign business, you are taxed on the value of that ownership. Valuation is a function of wealth as I understand it because it's folded into how much a person is deemed "worth." Something similar here is property or stocks. If you own so many shares of a company, you are "worth the value" of those stocks even though that isn't currency at your disposal. That's why people are taxed on the value of stocks they sell because now that's moved from an imaginary realm of value into income into the bank account.
  The Moores are saying: but valuation isn't income, so you can't tax us.
  The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal.
  I don't think an argument about discrimination is at all on the table. I think it'll be a more pedantic argument of value, wealth, and income - which of these is taxable and which of these are imaginary (with real outcomes).
  This is a complex notion for a non-legal person such as myself. The Trump tax package was absolute bullshit, but even I am surprised this one provision was in it. Surely this was created to hurt people Trump deemed as enemies, such as Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao, but then "ordinary" rich people like the Moores got swept up into it. I am very much in favor of more taxes on the rich, especially for overseas finances, which often is sheltered from federal taxation and transparency. But even I am torn about trying to make the distinction between valuation and income, and which should be taxable.
  
  If "valuation isn't income", then fuck me paying my property taxes from this point forward.
Where's the whining about "overreach" now?
Crickets?
Crickets and hypocrisy?
Thought so.
- What do you mean by this comment? The fact the court might hear a case on the premise that it would stymy future legislation is completely unorthodox and not within the purview of the court. That is overreach, by definition.
  
  I mean that it's usually right-wingers whining about overreach, but when it's their assholes doing it for their fascist agenda all of a sudden they go silent, which is (unsurprisingly) flagrant hypocrisy.
They have to protect their fiscal interests. How else will they go on extravagant trips without owing a thing?
I grow to hate my home country more every day.
Section 8: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes
I’d love to hear their reasoning.
- I could see a couple arguments. If the government argues it's an income tax under the 16th amendment you could probably argue somewhat convincingly that it is not yet income.
  As a direct tax under Article I Section 8 it would probably be doomed as it would need to be subject to the rule of apportionment -- each state is required to be taxed equal to its percentage of the national population.
  In order to survive you would either need to successfully argue that it is income or that it is an indirect tax (think excise taxes, customs duties, etc).
  
  Would a national sales tax on purchases over 5 or 10 million pass muster do you think? Or is sales tax something that only state and local governments can impose?
Setting aside how absolutely corrupt it would be for the court to hear this case let alone ruling in a predictable pro-business decision to explicitly kneecap future wealth tax legislation that doesn't even exist yet, I have to say that the author of this article has a real mastery.
"This is no idle threat,” the Moores said in their petition for review, referring to a federal wealth tax. They cited proposals by the Biden administration and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to tax billionaires based on their assets, none of which have passed Congress.
"THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH," said people who would still vote for Trump even though his policies hurt them personally, so they're reframing it all as fear-mongering against democrats whose proposals have never gained enough traction since 2017 to ever come close to becoming legislation.
"THE DANGER IS REAL," crowed people rich enough to own tigers on their estate about puppies and kitties they saw painted in a poster.
I don't wanna be around anymore

28 comments