1078
Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. They want the Supreme Court to keep it that way
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
1078 points (98.3% liked)
News
23361 readers
3750 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just to be clear, we're talking about wealth taxes, not income taxes. Yes, the wealthy have all kinds of avoiding paying fair income taxes. But, this is a different issue, this is a wealth tax.
It's important to realize, that most of the US already has a form of wealth tax: property taxes. The thing is, property taxes are a regressive form of wealth tax. Sure, the poorest people pay no property-wealth tax, because they're not wealthy enough to own taxable property. This time they do catch a slight break. Anybody who is middle-class and lucky enough to own a home pay the highest percentage of their total wealth as property-wealth taxes, because virtually all their wealth is tied up in that property. The wealthy pay almost no property-wealth taxes relative to their total wealth because only a tiny amount of their wealth is tied up in property.
If you graph it out, at the bottom the effective wealth tax is zero, then it jumps to a much higher number, then it declines more and more as you get richer and richer.
I say screw property taxes and replace them with a proper progressive wealth tax. Along with that, an inheritance tax with teeth and proper enforcement. The grandkids of billionaires should be starting on an equal footing with everyone else.
A ruling against wealth taxes would be insane and would essentially overturn our entire history of tax law. But it would be especially nuts in light of the ruling in NFIB v Sebelius that the government can hit you with a tax for doing nothing. That seems utterly incompatible with the idea that the government doesn't have the power to tax owning things and/or amassing wealth.
I guess that would mean you can tax not buying something, but you can't tax not selling something.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
I'm talking about this in terms of jurisprudence. Judges are supposed to rule based on law and precedent, not just on their personal preferences and political views. It's an essential element of the rule of law. There's very little point in having a constitution or laws if judges just ignore them and do whatever they want. I mean, I think most people here would agree that they do not approve of this Court defying precedent and most reasonable interpretations of the law in order to impose their will on the country.
Obviously, the Court can, has, and sometimes should overturn precedent, and potentially throw out decades or centuries of previously settled law. But generally speaking, that ruling should make a very compelling case for such an action. They would essentially be saying that everyone writing and interpreting the laws for all that time had gotten it wrong (intentionally or otherwise), including potentially the people who wrote the very sections of the constitution that the ruling is based on.
The more specific point I was making was that Roberts had ruled that the government could use the tax power alone to tax "not having insurance" and that it wouldn't run afoul of the constitution as long as it wasn't just a head tax applied to everyone indiscriminately, as that would be a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states.* That's the same clause that is being invoked in this case as a reason why wealth taxes shouldn't be allowed.
A ruling against taxes on unrealized gains would not only require the Court to assert that we've been doing it wrong this whole time and that we only just now figured that out, but Roberts in particular would be doing a complete 180 on the issue. Jumping from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other would be a rather remarkable change, one that would be hard to reconcile without concluding that one decision or the other was dishonest and politically motivated.
* And because it had a regulatory intent, aimed at compelling people to buy insurance, it had to also not be so crippling a burden that it's effects would need to go through police or regulatory powers.