In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in 2021, two of the Moores’ lawyers also declared unambiguously that the lawsuit “stands to slam shut the door on a federal wealth tax like the one Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to enact.” They made a direct pitch to “the courts” to hear the Moores’ case “now” to make it easier to block a wealth tax in the future.
The SCOTUS has been a force resisting civil rights and good governance for pretty much all of American history.
Too many middle-aged and older people these days grew up under the Warren court, but the Warren court was a fucking blip. An anomaly. An aberration.
They looked at the clock of the court, saw the sun high in the sky, saw the hands pointed at noon, and thought to themselves "Ah, everything is working fine." But the clock's dead broken and has been for centuries.
Desegregation, right to a defense attorney & Miranda rights, ending mandatory school prayer.
But also colloquially the era stretching a bit beyond where the court had a Liberal vision often including decisions in the 70s/80s decisions like roe v wade
Agreed. I would like to see a radical restructuring of the court, with additional justices to provide a better plurality of opinion and a non-partisan ethics oversight committee with the power to force recusals and bring criminal charges to justices that fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
I could see a couple arguments. If the government argues it's an income tax under the 16th amendment you could probably argue somewhat convincingly that it is not yet income.
As a direct tax under Article I Section 8 it would probably be doomed as it would need to be subject to the rule of apportionment -- each state is required to be taxed equal to its percentage of the national population.
In order to survive you would either need to successfully argue that it is income or that it is an indirect tax (think excise taxes, customs duties, etc).
Would a national sales tax on purchases over 5 or 10 million pass muster do you think? Or is sales tax something that only state and local governments can impose?
I wonder if they will argue that wealth tax is discriminatory. I don't see any other way for it to be challenges since power to raise revenue is vested with Congress so they have pretty broad power to do so as long as it is properly apportioned
My understanding of the article is that the Moores are suing probably based on the difference between wealth and income.
The Trump policy stipulates that if you own 10+% of a foreign business, you are taxed on the value of that ownership. Valuation is a function of wealth as I understand it because it's folded into how much a person is deemed "worth." Something similar here is property or stocks. If you own so many shares of a company, you are "worth the value" of those stocks even though that isn't currency at your disposal. That's why people are taxed on the value of stocks they sell because now that's moved from an imaginary realm of value into income into the bank account.
The Moores are saying: but valuation isn't income, so you can't tax us.
The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal.
I don't think an argument about discrimination is at all on the table. I think it'll be a more pedantic argument of value, wealth, and income - which of these is taxable and which of these are imaginary (with real outcomes).
This is a complex notion for a non-legal person such as myself. The Trump tax package was absolute bullshit, but even I am surprised this one provision was in it. Surely this was created to hurt people Trump deemed as enemies, such as Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao, but then "ordinary" rich people like the Moores got swept up into it. I am very much in favor of more taxes on the rich, especially for overseas finances, which often is sheltered from federal taxation and transparency. But even I am torn about trying to make the distinction between valuation and income, and which should be taxable.
I did not click the article or read the cases so thank you for providing this summary.
"The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal."
This is a bad argument... you get taxed on your house and chattel property by lower branch of government at that. You get taxed on the value of the property. Similar legal underpinnings can be used for a wealth tax.
So here it sounds like, case is specific to ownership of foreign equity. I am not sure why this was implemented and honestly I have not heard of it. We have controlled foreign companies rules in place to target foreign earned income of us residents, which is riddled with holes like swiss cheese. For example, tax code provides an exclusion from this regime for companies utilizing foreign contract manufacturers. What has happened to US manufacturing over last 30 years... asking for friend. But i digress.
The title is a bit misleading since this is [NOT] an a wealth tax per se and it was not really structured as such. If the policy makers went this route, they almost certain wanted it to be over turned, the legal underpinnings are just not there.
Call it what it is, and tax it as such as long as it is fair to the class of people being subjected to the regime, there is not reason for corrupt geriatric council to be involved.
The tax implications are far beyond my life experience as someone who qualifies for the 1040EZ form every year lol
I'm not sure if this was a Trumpian Easter egg bomb that was planted and waiting to be discovered for the purpose of further eroding the federal government's ability to raise funds through the IRS. That does sound like it comes from the conservative playbook, but the way this particular case has played out sounds like it required far more foresight than what Trump and his sycophants could have devised without external help.
You make an excellent case about the taxation on value for homes taking place at the municipal level, but the case for stocks is at the federal level, so I can see why business dealings might fall under the scope of federal taxation.
I think if this particular court case was only about the scope of the 16th amendment, then it would be a bit more cut and dry. However, the lawyers for the Moores are also pushing rhetoric that this court decision should also be instrumental in guiding and shaping future legislation on wealth tax and that is so incredibly unethical and problematic. That is not the role of the court and should not be one of its aims.
Because two things are at issue here, I find it hard to pick a side to root for: yes, defeat for the Moores so the law stands and proposals for future wealth tax legislation aren't encumbered by this decision; or yes, a tax policy part of an otherwise regressive tax system implemented by an authoritarian criminal is defeated to really stick it in that guy's eye, but now Pandora's box is opened for nearly all taxation on wealth to have new precedent set and possibly stymy good, progressive legislation proposals.
What do you mean by this comment? The fact the court might hear a case on the premise that it would stymy future legislation is completely unorthodox and not within the purview of the court. That is overreach, by definition.
I mean that it's usually right-wingers whining about overreach, but when it's their assholes doing it for their fascist agenda all of a sudden they go silent, which is (unsurprisingly) flagrant hypocrisy.
They have to protect their fiscal interests. How else will they go on extravagant trips without owing a thing?
I grow to hate my home country more every day.
Setting aside how absolutely corrupt it would be for the court to hear this case let alone ruling in a predictable pro-business decision to explicitly kneecap future wealth tax legislation that doesn't even exist yet, I have to say that the author of this article has a real mastery.
"This is no idle threat,” the Moores said in their petition for review, referring to a federal wealth tax. They cited proposals by the Biden administration and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to tax billionaires based on their assets, none of which have passed Congress.
"THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH," said people who would still vote for Trump even though his policies hurt them personally, so they're reframing it all as fear-mongering against democrats whose proposals have never gained enough traction since 2017 to ever come close to becoming legislation.
"THE DANGER IS REAL," crowed people rich enough to own tigers on their estate about puppies and kitties they saw painted in a poster.
Add comment