My Outline for a Federal Wealth Tax

08/01/2018 | Brian Griffin

[The Pack Knight]

What part of 16th Amendment nullifies the Direct Tax Clause with regard to a wealth tax?”

In my opinion, The “16th Amendment nullifies the Direct Tax Clause”, period.

The Supreme Court may disagree.

Your opinion is baseless. It is contrary to the plain language of the 16th amendment, which authorizes only an income tax.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you since the earliest days of the 16th Amendment. In Eisner v. Macomber in 1920, and in Helvering v. independent Life Ins. Co. in 1934, the Supreme Court held portions of the federal income tax unconstitutional as unapportioned direct taxes because they did not actually tax income.

[Brian Griffin]

“Net worth narrows your target for this supplemental tax to those around age 55 who will have paid off their 30-yr mortgages - those past their peak earning years, least able to absorb a thousand dollar hit... “

The exemption goes up by age.

Two 55-year olds get an $11,000 tax exemption together, $5,500 each.

People with a paid up $500,000 house and $150,000 in common stock can pay a $1,000 tax.

[Brian Griffin]

“In Eisner v. Macomber in 1920, and in Helvering v. independent Life Ins. Co. in 1934, the Supreme Court held portions of the federal income tax unconstitutional as unapportioned direct taxes because they did not actually tax income.”

1920, 1934, really?

[Brian Griffin]

“It is contrary to the plain language of the 16th amendment”

The 16th Amendment is “contrary to the plain language of the” direct tax clause.

Your 1934 case is older than Plessy v. Ferguson(1896) was in 1950.

[Brian Griffin]

“Your opinion is baseless.”

Amendment XVI and the direct tax clause can not both be valid, logically.

[Brian Griffin]

“And if chattel property (paintings, rare coins, etc.) truly is exempt from a holding tax, then lots of folks would would be investing in those, and avoiding stocks.”

Chattels often are bad investments.

Many auction houses also charge a 10% buyers premium.

States charge sales tax (~5% - 9%) on every sale.

[Brian Griffin]

“Heavy taxed states a la New York and California are losing populations to red states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida.”

We have lots of taxation in Florida, you just don’t see it, your house builder does.

[The Pack Knight]

Cases don’t become bad law just because they are old. The Court cites cases older than that all the time. The Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise.

But, if that’s your hangup, the Supreme Court applied the Direct Tax Clause as recently as 2012 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Obamacare case. “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.” The Court held that the individual mandate tax was not a direct tax, unlike “taxes on personal property,” and cited Eisner v. Macomber.

Your proposed tax is unconstitutional.

[The Pack Knight]

“Your opinion is baseless.”

Amendment XVI and the direct tax clause can not both be valid, logically.

Sure they can. The 16th Amendment supersedes the Direct Tax Clause as to income taxes, not to any other type of tax, such as your proposed property tax. If the 16th Amendment was supposed to repeal the Direct Tax Clause entirely, Congress would have simply put that in the amendment when they proposed it.

It was enacted in response to the Pollock case, in which the Supreme Court held that taxes on income realized from property were direct taxes which had to be apportioned under the Direct Tax Clause.

Taxes on other forms of income, such as wages, have always been held to be indirect taxes not subject to the Direct Tax Clause.

[The Pack Knight]

And lest you respond to NFIB v. Sebelius by pointing out that I was quoting Roberts’ opinion, see Scalia’s dissent: “ Finally, we must observe that rewriting § 5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, § 9, cl. 4. “

[Ohioan]

Nothing is more idiotic than to punish multi-generational achievement, which seems to be what you propose. The Sixteenth Amendment has created immense problems, because of its authorization of a graduated impact in that direction. A tax to further attack the accumulation of wealth--the life-blood of American success--will appeal only to Socialists bent upon a war on what once made us the envy of the world.

Lies Of Socialism

[blueplum]

How about we fine lobster-eating foodstamps slacker dudes and basement dwellers $1000 annually for being worthless to society, instead of going after workers who have supported the system their entire lives and managed to achieve some personal gain?

You know what will ‘cure’ the natl debt? - return of industry to the US and 200+ million people working and paying income taxes (about half of the actual population) as opposed to what we had pre-Trump: one-third of the population trying to support two-thirds of the population with the two-thirds demanding more and more money from the one-third.

[rxh4n1]

You post this on Free Republic? Is this your idea? If it is get out of here. This belongs on DU.