Connect with us

Democrats

Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal is most definitely unconstitutional

Published

on

Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax proposal is most definitely unconstitutional

Elizabeth Warren has touted her latest anti-capitalist proposal. In her last proposal, she introduced measures that would make corporations less investment-worthy in an effort to shift their priorities. Now she wants to impose a wealth tax on the richest of the rich, .1%. The wealth tax would be a new tax in the repertoire of Uncle Sam.

It must be stated that a wealth tax is not an income tax, its a federal tax on assets. Note: total assets and not net assets would be taxed according to the original report and subsequent reporting thus far. The proposal has seen a lot of praise from Democrats who are weighing their options of the proposal with AOC’s 70% income tax proposal.

Direct taxes and the Constitution

The wealth tax would most certainly be classified under a direct tax. An indirect tax would be one of consumption. An essay by the Heritage Foundation writes that “the Framers believed that ‘direct taxes’ needed to be cabined. The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state’s share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose.”

Congress did, however, pass taxes such as a carriage tax which the Supreme Court ruled in Hylton v. United States (1796) counted as an excise tax. It seemed as though the confines of a direct tax would be restricted to a capitation tax, or a head tax, and land taxes. A head tax is specifically prohibited in Article 1 Section 9. This changed with the landmark ruling Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The Supreme Court held “that the Act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds; this was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states.”

The Progressives later passed the 16th Amendment allowing Congress to circumvent the apportionment clause with regards to income tax. We have been taxed ever since.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

“From whatever source derived” may allow for the expansion into capital gains and even the death tax, but Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would be legal yoga, as the assets, chief among them, land, would be taxed. Without appropriation, a condition which is absent from Elizabeth Warren’s proposal, Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would most certainly be a direct tax scheme imposed by Congress. Though the 1895 decision was largely negated by the 16th Amendment, its commentary on direct and indirect taxation is definitive in spite of efforts of Congress to negate it in favor of the Hylton decision. The 16th Amendment has since undergone little visitation from the high court. Perhaps relevant to Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is the Eisner v. Macomber (1920) where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not tax stock dividends as they were not an income event.

“We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

The precedent set in the Macomber decision, which according to an additional essay by the Heritage Foundation, has been cited favorably numerous times by the Supreme Court as recently as 1991. The three Supreme Court cases combined show that a wealth tax would need apportionment which would defeat the intentions of the bill. A state with an at-large representative would only have to contribute 1/435th of the revenue. I guess we know where all the rich people are going, Wyoming… All the sudden the 3% wealth tax on billionaires is instantly reduced for those who move accordingly and the $2.75 trillion in 10 years is infeasible, at least with Elizabeth Warren’s .1% target. Furthermore a wealth tax could not function as Elizabeth Warren intends, further proof that she has no intentions of abiding by the Constitution. The Supreme Court notes in Pollock:

By the act of July 14, 1798, when a war with France was supposed to be impending, a direct tax of two millions of dollars was apportioned to the States respectively, in the manner prescribed, which tax was to be collected by officers of the United States and assessed upon “dwelling houses, lands, and slaves” according to the valuations and enumerations to be made pursuant to the act of July 9, 1798, entitled “An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses and the enumeration of slaves within the United States.” 1 Stat. 597, c. 75; id., 580, c. 70. Under these acts, every dwelling house was assessed according to a prescribed value, and the sum of fifty cents upon every slave enumerated, and the residue of the sum apportioned was directed to be assessed upon the lands within each State according to the valuation made pursuant to the prior act and at such rate percentum as would be sufficient to produce said remainder.

So to summarize, the apportionment means that Congress has to demand a specific amount of money and divide that sum among each state according to their representation. The wealth tax has no intentions of doing such meaning it is not only outside of the protections of the 16th Amendment but also directly prohibited by Article 1 Section 9.

I hope this was a strong presentation for the wealth tax’s unconstitutional status. Although I am most certain the 9th Circuit Court or some District judge in Hawaii will rule otherwise if this comes to fruition.

Image Source: Flickr


Subscribe on YouTube

Advertisement
1 Comment

Democrats

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

Published

on

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

In 2016, I watched every debate the Democratic Party put on. Their policies were in a state of flux at the time and I wanted to learn more about that crazy up-and-coming whippersnapper, Senator Bernie Sanders.

This time, there are many reasons I won’t be watching the debate. First, the field is too big for now. I just don’t care enough about what 2/3rds of them have to say because less than 1/3rd actually have at least a minor shot of getting the nomination. The others are fundraising for their next election.

Second, I already know all the answers. Tim Young broke them down:

The third and final reason (there are more, but let’s not get boring) I won’t be watching tonight’s debate is because there are so many better ways to spend my time. Here are 10 things people should be doing that would be time better spent.

  1. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, especially if you live in a Democrat-controlled city like San Francisco, Seattle, or New York.
  2. Eat dinner at Chick-fil-A.
  3. Read the Constitution instead of listening to people who view it as a hindrance to their goals.
  4. Learn how we’re working to stop socialism from rising in America.
  5. Clean your guns. Too many gun owners aren’t doing proper maintenance.
  6. Learn about the growing threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  7. Preorder “Unplanned“.
  8. Spend time with family, friends, pets, or anyone you know who could use some encouragement today.
  9. Shop at Wayfair.
  10. Literally anything else.

Spoiler alert: They all hate Trump. They all want to stop America from being divided. They all want you to hate successful Americans. The Democrats’ responses will be variations of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Progressives’ contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Published

on

Progressives contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Progressives are pushing what seems to be contradictory narratives on the same subject. The “concentration camp” narrative and all associated stories about poor conditions at migrant centers across the southern border is designed to invoke hatred that can be directed at the President for forcing migrants to live in terrible conditions. The “not a dime” narrative says American taxpayers should not spend anything additional on improving border housing quality and quantity.

Today, many Wayfair employees are walking out in protest because the company is selling beds to a contractor that supplies migrant centers. That’s the contradictory narrative in action, complaining that the kids aren’t comfortable while staying at migrant centers, then boycotting companies supplying the means to make them more comfortable.

Conservatives on Twitter responded:

The reality is this: They want the migrant centers to be so packed, so uncomfortable, and so inhumane that the outcry from America is to just let them go. Here is their narrative in a nutshell:

Give them their asylum hearing papers and let them go. In fact, take them wherever they want to go in America. If they show up for their hearing, so be it. If not, great! They’re immigrants like everyone else now. Give them a driver’s license, social services, free school, free housing, free healthcare, free food, free clothes, and anything else they can’t afford. Soon, we’ll give them voting rights. Because by coming here, they’re now Americans and deserve all of the rights of American citizens… plus plus plus.

If all of this sounds ludicrous, it’s because it is. If it sounds reasonable, you’re a modern-day radical progressive, in which case I welcome you to this site and I hope you read it thoroughly every day until you abandon your destructive ideology.

There is no contradiction in what progressives are promoting. They want all migrants released to the interior without hesitation. No stop at a migrant center. Just give them their papers and allow them to go if they want. If they don’t want to go immediately, take care of them until they do. That’s the current goal for progressives on border security. They want no security at all.

It’s time to stop arguing against progressives using logic. They won’t see it. They set their mind on a goal and will then do anything to achieve that goal. It doesn’t truly matter to them if migrants die in the process. In fact, it makes their case faster; the more deaths that happen at the border or in migrant centers, the easier it becomes for them to push their narrative.

Progressives don’t want beds for the migrants. They don’t want them to be held at all. We need to stop scratching our heads at their apparent contradiction and understand what progressives really want.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The only 6 Democrats running that can think for themselves

Published

on

The only 6 Democrats running that can think for themselves

Socialism is often a hive mind, as we see every Leftist outlet have the same take on a story, same arguments for a position, and the overall same mission. Conformity is the end goal; to Leftist-Socialism we will conform, if they have their way. In conformity, deviant thinking is often punished, as we saw how Joe Biden was forced to flip-flop on the meaningless Hyde Amendment and multiple feminists have been cast out for not accepting transgenderism.

The Left will eat their own for stepping out of line. But even within the confines of the conformity, there are notable distinctions between Democrats who can think for themselves and Democrats who cannot. The Joe Biden example with the Hyde Amendment shows he doesn’t have an original thought as it pertains to policy. Likewise Kamala Harris insisting on having that conversation indicates the same. Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand are the same exact person. So let’s take inventory of the original thinkers.

Bernie Sanders

This is probably the most obvious among the field of 24. Bernie Sanders was a socialist before it was cool, like back when the Soviet Union was collapsing. This guy loves communism, breadlines, and living off the government. And it’s doubtful anyone has pressured him into becoming more zealous, as opposed to the environment being safer to expose himself.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is the brains of the socialist movement. She has come out with more policy proposals than any other Democrat candidate, it seems. When it comes to policy, she’s a wonk, kept warm in her Massachusetts log cabin by the burning of the US Constitution, coming up with ideas on how to implement her vision. From the unconstitutional wealth tax to Medicare (Medicaid) for all, she’s a thought leader.

Tulsi Gabbard

The only thing likable about Gabbard is her foreign policy stances, only to isolationist Libertarians. Otherwise she is a complete communist. Still, her differentiating on foreign policy is enough of a deviance from the hive mind to credit her on this list.

Marianne Williamson

She was the thought leader for the New Age cult back in the 1990’s. Since then she has been an activist on multiple fronts. Oprah’s spiritual advisor was a socialist before it was cool, dating back at least to her failed Congressional run in 2014.

Tim Ryan

Nothing demonstrates divergent behavior in the Democrat ranks quite like taking on Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang does not fit in with the candidates at all. He has a grasp of economics and technology that far exceeds the field.

Democrat Presidential Primary Bracket

Are the candidates capable of thinking for themselves in a better position to win the nomination. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are among the top contenders, but the field is vast and socialist are legion. Fill out your bracket here.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending