(01-25-2019 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Looks like Warren went full Ocasio-Cortez ----

proposed a 'wealth tax'. Not surprised, Warren has been preaching soft socialism since OC was in diapers, but the 1/1024 wonder seemingly has gone full metal OC now.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...iting.html

I wonder how in the hell the vaunted 'legal scholar' thinks that a 'wealth tax' on individuals is in any way, shape, or form constitutional. Not to let some of the Trumpster's notions be sounded 'light in the head' Constitution wise, but at least the orange haired one isnt a supposed 'legal scholar' doing this.

As an aside, I wonder if, when you are throwing out completely illegal and/or completely unobtainable ideas to the masses on the progressive side to 'stoke the fires', if that shouldnt be termed 'throwing blue meat'.

Not arguing for or against it, but what would make the wealth tax any different in a constitutional sense from any other tax? Legit wondering about the thought process and differentiation.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 4 --

Quote: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Also Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Quote:Clause 3. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,

Strikethrough eliminated by 16th Amendment. No tax assigned to individuals, aside from those granted by the 16th Amendment, may be placed on individuals. Any such tax must be done apportioned to state. Thus, for example, the only legal way for 'national property tax' would be the collected taxes from Missouri must be roughly equal to those collected in Massachusetts (because of roughly equal populations.)

Thus, in the case of a Federal wealth tax for individuals, the proceeds emanating from Missouri must be comparable to those emanating from Massachusetts. Or, for example, the taxes from California must be equal to the X * Missouri, where X is the ratio of California residents to Missouri residents.

The only Federal 'non-apportioned by state population' tax allowed is that from income -- and that took the 16th Amendment to accomplish.

The issue isnt 'what makes a "wealth" tax different', but what makes the Federal income tax 'different'.