« Leavenworth Ep. 3, Judgment | Main | State-level universality »
Friday, November 08, 2019
Wealth Taxes Are Not Unconstitutional
I want to make a point that is getting lost in the discussion of wealth taxes. Assume for the sake of argument that a wealth tax is a "direct tax" as defined by the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that direct taxes are prohibited. Rather, direct taxes must just be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers. Thus, a wealth tax is not unconstitutional, though the way in which such a tax is applied can be.
Posted by Gerard Magliocca on November 8, 2019 at 03:23 PM | Permalink
Comments
thegreatdisappointment, Just get stealthy, and disappear.Don't comment here on me no more.
Posted by: El roam | Nov 12, 2019 4:24:46 AM
El Roam,
At least you your reply to one comment. That is progress.
Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Nov 12, 2019 2:22:28 AM
thegreatdisappointment ,
leave commenting to me. You don't know nothing about comments or whatever alike. Spare me your sales men advice.It would take you everlasting one, to reach the level of my comments, and even far beyond it. How dare you ? Feeble mind like you?
Posted by: El roam | Nov 9, 2019 4:22:44 AM
El Roam,
Have you ever written just one comment? It seems you always spam a comment section with two or three comments in a row. I'm convinced you do it on purpose. Why not write the comment, then read it before posting it, allow you to make whatever corrections or clarifications you need to make.
Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Nov 9, 2019 1:55:41 AM
Just correction/ clarification to my comment:
I wrote: "of which nothing is mentioned in the constitution " and I have referred to "immunity" of course, not "uniformity".
Thanks
Posted by: El roam | Nov 8, 2019 6:40:48 PM
It is not so clear, what the respectable author of the post, refers to, when stating " direct tax " and how implied on wealth taxes. Legal dictionary, defines so the direct tax v. indirect one, I quote:
Direct Tax Law and Legal Definition
A direct tax is a tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax. Taxes can be either direct or indirect. A direct tax is one that the taxpayer pays directly to the government and cannot be shifted to others. Examples include personal property taxes paid directly to the government by a homeowner and federal income taxes paid by a family.
An indirect tax can be passed on to another person or group. A business may recover the cost of the taxes it pays by charging higher prices to customers. A tax shift occurs when the business shifts its taxes to others.
End of quotation:
So, suppose that one would accept such definition. Then it is a direct tax indeed ( the wealth tax on individuals, presuming that to this refers the author of the post). For, they pay it directly to government.
In constitutional terms, one should not forget the famous saying by Chief justice Marshal :
" The power to tax involves the power to destroy "
or,as in the dissenting opinion of justice Butler in Graves v. N.Y at the time, I quote:
" Where the power to tax exists, legislatures may exert it to destroy, to discourage, to protect or exclusively for the purpose of raising revenue ".
And indeed, this is the meaning, of immunity given to officers of some federal agencies from state taxes ( as discussed in the ruling mention, for, immunity, means exemption and destroying uniformity, of which nothing is mentioned in the constitution). One can also conclude it from the constitution itself. Here I quote ( relevant part, article I, section 8) :
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
End of quotation:
So, despite it, immunity and exemptions exist. And the article states: " general Welfare of the United states ". United states as a whole. That is to say, for the benefit of all, not only individuals. Strategic perspective is needed. In accordance, one may raise, one may destroy.
To the ruling mentioned:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/306/466
Thanks
Posted by: El roam | Nov 8, 2019 6:36:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.