He wants a minimum tax of 25% on the wealthiest Americans, a levy that would be applied not only to income but unrealized capital gains. The idea, which Biden called the “billionaire minimum income tax,” could prove difficult to put in place, not to mention extremely hard to push through Congress, given Republican opposition to higher taxes.
Know why else it will be hard to pass? Because there is zero percent chance that this is Constitutional. We do not - and never have - taxed held assets in America. It's right there in the Fifth Amendment:
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In understanding the provision, we both agree that it is helpful to keep in mind the reasons behind it. We agree that the Clause is intended to uphold the principle that the government should not single out isolated individuals to bear excessive burdens, even in support of an important public good. When this happens, the payment of “just compensation” provides a means of removing any special burden. The most influential statement of this principle is found in Armstrong v. United States (1960), where the Supreme Court wrote: “The Fifth Amendment’s [Takings Clause] . . . was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”
The Associated Press just parrots left-wing talking points and not a single editor or publisher adds the relevant Constitutional context. Every time, man, every time.
4 comments:
If it were that simple, the government would be Constitutionally obliged to compensate citizens for the value of the taxes that they pay, which would nullify taxation.
By this same logic, property taxes would also be unconstitutional since only some people pay them while other people pay nothing.
The government has the power to eliminate an activity or regulate it extensively without paying compensation, and thus it may use taxation as a regulatory tool. The Constitutional boundary where "unfair" taxation begins is unclear, as both the unfettered power to tax and the restriction on private property seizure share space in the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared over 200 years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland that "The only security against the abuse of this [taxation] power, is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
Meaning that should the people object to onerous and unacceptable taxation, the remedy is not to halt the taxation. It is that the people can elect replacement representatives to change the tax policy.
Okay a 25% tax for the rich would be a tax break from the current 35%. They really are this stupid, proud and indignant. The problem is that we are being ruled from afar instead of being represented at home by people too stupid to fathom intelligent law for civil and moral people.
Okay the 400 wealthiest U.S. families pay an average federal individual income tax rate of 8.2%.
Moral, or stupid?
LOL there is a sizable difference between the taxes a company pays VS the taxes the owner pays. But thanks for playing...
Post a Comment