Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’

Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’

 
Old 01-28-2019, 07:08 AM
  #1  
Grumpy
MONARTOR
Thread Starter
 
Grumpy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2001
Location: What I know, is dwarfed by what I pretend to know
Posts: 194,559
Received 35 Likes on 16 Posts
Cruise-In 5-6-7-8 Veteran
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-10-'11-12-'13-'14-'15-'16-17-'18
NCM Sinkhole Donor

Default Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’ would be the rape of the Constitution

By William Sullivan


Elizabeth Warren has unleashed her bold new presidential campaign promise, which she cleverly calls “The Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” After all, none of us are “ultra-millionaires,” so why should we care? This new tax won’t hurt you, it would just impose a 2% annual tax on all household net worth over $50M, with an additional 1% surtax kicking in for assets held over $1B. In her plan, wealth is defined as “all household assets… including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trusts, retirement assets, assets held by minor children and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more.”

“I’m in,” she says, “on the notion that we have to rewrite the tax code.” And a policy like the one she proposes, say two UC Berkeley economists, “would shrink the wealth of the superrich by $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period, while only affecting around 75,000 U.S. households.”

“Ultra-millionaire.” “Superrich.” As you can see, this is all very scientific and measured stuff.

In truth, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed 70% tax on the “tippy tops” of income earners looks downright sober and rational compared to Warren’s proposed policy. And for all Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance about how government works (the three branches of government are not, in fact, “the presidency, the Senate, and the House,” as she recently proclaimed), at least her proposed tax plan appears constitutional. Yet Warren, a Harvard law professor, has proposed a tax plan which is, not potentially, but certainly unconstitutional.

This can be proven quite simply to anyone who cares to learn.

The Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 gave the federal government an additional right to tax income, and only income. Most federal revenue currently derives from this method of taxation. Individual income tax, business income tax (corporate tax), payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare -- all are collected as a percentage of income earned, and the government is deemed within its right to collect these revenues only because the Sixteenth Amendment exists.

Now, you don’t have to be an economist or a Harvard law professor to know that “net worth” is not “income,” and that the Sixteenth Amendment could not uphold the constitutionality of Warren’s proposal.

So, what are the other means of taxation allowed by the Constitution?

Article I, Section 8 declares that “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises…”

Throughout our history, we’ve seen a bevy of “duties, imposts, and excises,” but we did not see much in the way of “direct taxes” until 1913.

That is because the Constitution includes caveats as to how direct taxes can be applied, most notably in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which reads, “No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.”

According to Roy Ulrich of UC Berkeley, this is the specific clause which any new “net worth tax” would unequivocally violate. Warren’s would most certainly qualify as having violated this clause, as it’s a direct tax which is uniform based upon a taxpayer’s asset value, and without apportionment in relation to “Census or Enumeration” among the individual states.

There can be no argument that this clause was the reason for the necessity of the Sixteenth Amendment, and that it remains troublesome to progressives today.

“A direct tax,” Ulrich writes, “is a tax on real or personal property imposed solely by reason of its being owned by the taxpayer. In contrast, indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event, such as the transmission of property. Thus defined, the income tax is plainly a direct tax. So, for that matter, is a tax on any asset.”

It’s really quite simple. Income tax is a direct tax, but taxation of income is specifically protected by a constitutional amendment. A direct tax on assets held without any “transmission” of property having taken place is the arbitrary confiscation of property by a federal government which clearly has no right enumerated in the Constitution to do so.

I personally do not think Elizabeth Warren has a shot at the presidency. But as the current crop of Democrats seem to be doing perpetual end-arounds to continually stay to the left of one another, I don’t think the fact that this policy proposal is insanely unconstitutional means that it has any less value in terms of its rhetorical legs.

And I personally do not think that Warren is so stupid as to not know that her proposal is clearly unconstitutional. There’s an endgame here, and it’s a page torn right out of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s playbook.

Let’s break it down

First, it’s popular with the Democrat base, who see the Constitution as an obstruction to progress, and not the safeguard against tyranny that it’s designed to be. In short, the contention is, as it was with FDR, that we need to be experimenting with new ideas to have progress, and if giving the federal government more power than the constitutional tether allows in order to facilitate these experiments, then so be it.

Second, let’s say that Democrats are able to secure both chambers of Congress and the presidency in 2020. They would then have a choice. They could push for a constitutional amendment allowing for some sort of direct tax on net worth because, as that gaggle of lawyers in D.C. should damn well know, nothing in the Constitution currently allows it.

But setting the precedent, and enshrining in stone, that the federal government has a right to go diving into Americans retirement accounts like Scrooge McDuck in his money bin, or requisitioning their securities, their real estate, or hell, even their collectible antique cars, is not something that will sit well with Americans. Such an amendment would be dead-on-arrival. Rather, they’ll take the more sinister path of least resistance.

They’ll just try to jam through a bill to “rewrite the tax code,” as Warren says. And let’s say they are able to pass something to this effect, God forbid. It should go without saying that if all members of the Court cared about the nature of the individual’s rights in relation to the government as defined by the Constitution, it would be crushed unanimously. But while it may not be shot down with extreme prejudice, it will be shot down by this Supreme Court.

Then, a constitutional crisis will be declared, just as FDR did when the Supreme Court began laying waste to his reckless New Deal experiments. And you should know what comes next. The left will cry that the Supreme Court is at odds with the people’s desires, and will call to pack the Court with new leftist justices. They’ve already begun calling for this. Knowing that they can’t change the Constitution to allow what they desire to do, this is the only viable means to destroy the Constitution’s safeguards which prohibit their radical and redistributive policy prescriptions.

It is the Democrats who are advocating this rape of the Constitution’s protections, and not one single Republican is. You should remember that the next time you hear a conservative sanctimoniously suggests that the moral thing to do to protect our country’s integrity is to sit out on the coming election because he doesn’t like the personal demeanor of the Republican candidate

Grumpy is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:27 AM
  #2  
GARYFINN
CF Senior Member
 
GARYFINN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2008
Location: S/W ,Fla-Ohio State Football isn't a matter of life or death,Its Much More serious than that
Posts: 43,981
Received 271 Likes on 153 Posts
Default

The left is very very dangerous I dont see all this turmoil ending peacefully.Keep your powder dry people the worst is yet to come.
GARYFINN is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:32 AM
  #3  
Platoface
CF Senior Member
 
Platoface's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2002
Location: Donald Trump is an American hero. AR
Posts: 50,572
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11
Default

After a while you have just made enough money.

--Barrack Insane Obama
Platoface is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:34 AM
  #4  
GARYFINN
CF Senior Member
 
GARYFINN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2008
Location: S/W ,Fla-Ohio State Football isn't a matter of life or death,Its Much More serious than that
Posts: 43,981
Received 271 Likes on 153 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Platoface View Post
After a while you have just made enough money.

--Barrack Insane Obama
Unless it's their money.
GARYFINN is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:45 AM
  #5  
Mr D.
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mr D.'s Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 27,801
Received 228 Likes on 211 Posts
Default

2020 will be about free **** pitting makers and takers against each other.
Mr D. is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:00 AM
  #6  
Platoface
CF Senior Member
 
Platoface's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2002
Location: Donald Trump is an American hero. AR
Posts: 50,572
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11
Default

Originally Posted by Platoface View Post
After a while you have just made enough money.

--Barrack Insane Obama
Originally Posted by GARYFINN View Post
Unless it's their money.
That is where the you comes into play. Elitists have no such limits.
Platoface is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:02 AM
  #7  
Platoface
CF Senior Member
 
Platoface's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2002
Location: Donald Trump is an American hero. AR
Posts: 50,572
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11
Default

Originally Posted by Mr D. View Post
2020 will be about free **** pitting makers and takers against each other.
Exactly, Socialism for ALL. Equal outcome. You all will be knee deep in ****. There, don’t you feel better knowing you all have same amount of ****. Don’t forget to thank your masters for making it so. And don’t complain, no face crimes either.
Platoface is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:33 AM
  #8  
65Z01
CF Senior Member
 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Posts: 82,610
Likes: 0
Received 128 Likes on 122 Posts
Cruise-In II Veteran
Default

Well, the jackass sheeple elected a majority of libbie scum into the House so why not just give it all to the commie scum.
65Z01 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:39 AM
  #9  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,438
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

A wealth tax by another name...
owebo is online now  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:50 AM
  #10  
Slo Yelo C5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Nov 2016
Posts: 10,332
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Mr D. View Post
2020 will be about free **** pitting makers and takers against each other.
Because the US, this giant island, is about to tip over and capsize.

We've become a nation full of unfit people thanks to crazy lib policies over the past 3 decades. We are sinking into the abyss. While China, Russia, India, etc have more and more geniuses, we're becoming a country full of morons. They used to be a small percent of our population. But thanks to insane policies encouraging the poor to have excessive numbers of offspring they can't and don't raise properly (how can people with no financial means or resources except the government raise 7, 8, 10+ offspring?), combined with receiving genes from the shallow end of the pool,we're becoming a nation where the takers are the norm and the makers are shrinking below the majority of the country.

An economic disaster in the making. Once this canoe tips, that's it. We're just about there. Give it 5 more years...
Slo Yelo C5 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:14 AM
  #11  
Krystal
CF Senior Member
 
Krystal's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,017
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Default

A "Confiscation Tax" is actually a pretty HONEST proposal from Elizabeth Warren.

FINALLY an ULTRA LEFT Candidate without any reservations about revealing her "COMMUNIST LEANINGS".

I'm pretty split on this one. I'm having a tough time reconciling how Elizabeth Warren gets to this proposal. Is it an actual serious proposal or is it just an attempt to cast herself as the furthest Left Leaning Candidate to the many Millennial and older voters that have completely failed to grasp how Capitalism moved so much of the Globe's wealth to this country since the end of WW2? I'm not sure.

Either way though....

The most discouraging thing about this proposal is found in what it says about anyone who'd actually support the idea. To honestly WANT THIS......requires an American to have no understanding of how this country came to dominate the world's economy and attract so much more of the wealth in the world than any other country by far.

Our version of Capitalism is less than perfect and admittedly it doesn't distribute wealth evenly.......but it has still worked out better than any other attempt, anywhere in the history of the world. Government policy doesn't improve living Standards. MONEY and OPORTUNITY does. This is where Capitalism and a fierce PROTECTION of Private property rights give this country it's edge. Confiscation of Wealth is a Fundamental and very serious attack on Private Property protections. Without the Protections in law to "own" the desire to achieve it is lost. Make no mistake there is a HUGE difference between taxing an income or a sale when it happens and just taking a percentage of wealth at a certain level each year.

The saddest part and most damning of our public education system, concerning this proposal from Elizabeth Warren, is found in how so many people would actually support this idea.

To get there you have to completely miss out on any understanding of American economic history and you have to fail completely to understand why Communist policy in so many countries in the 20th century flat out FAILED.

A line comes to mind that covers this one pretty completely,

"those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it" ........... The USA could easily head into this direction. The idea that it would work out any differently for us than it did for Communist wealth confiscating countries in the 20th century though is pure fantasy and foolish. Takes real IGNORANCE on the part of Citizens to even ask for it. Yet many willl.

Last edited by Krystal; 01-28-2019 at 09:16 AM.
Krystal is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:19 AM
  #12  
biackbenz
CF Senior Member
 
biackbenz's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: Mequon WI
Posts: 640
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Remember the Alternative Minimum Tax. Only supposed to tax the rich. Now it reaches almost everyone. And I'm not rich.
biackbenz is online now  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:23 AM
  #13  
Jasil
CF Senior Member
 
Jasil's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: Slidell La
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Platoface View Post
After a while you have just made enough money.

--Barrack Insane Obama
Taxes should be raised a loopholes closed.

Last edited by Jasil; 01-28-2019 at 09:24 AM.
Jasil is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:25 AM
  #14  
LarsAtTheBeach
CF Senior Member
 
LarsAtTheBeach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Posts: 46,807
Received 29 Likes on 10 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Default

Tax the super rich. Give the money to illegals.
The super rich won’t build mega homes and buy yachts and jets.
The middle class citizens and small business owners will suffer.
LarsAtTheBeach is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:26 AM
  #15  
LarsAtTheBeach
CF Senior Member
 
LarsAtTheBeach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Posts: 46,807
Received 29 Likes on 10 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Default

Originally Posted by Jasil View Post
Taxes should be raised a loopholes closed.
taxes should be equally distributed
LarsAtTheBeach is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:26 AM
  #16  
VITE1
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VITE1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Port St Lucie FL Life is hard, Then you die, FL USA
Posts: 65,828
Received 44 Likes on 22 Posts
Cruise-In X Veteran
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Default

Originally Posted by Jasil View Post
Taxes should be raised a loopholes closed.
What a moronic statement. The history of the federal income tax shows that no matter what the rate is actual revenue is always between 18-21% of GDP.

We don't have a tax rate /revenue problem. We have a spending problem. When do we address that issue?

Last edited by VITE1; 01-28-2019 at 09:38 AM.
VITE1 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:58 AM
  #17  
rudutch
CF Senior Member
 
rudutch's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2017
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 948
Received 16 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

She needs to lead by example

Her average net worth of $8.75 million, including her home, secures her a spot the Top 1% bracket in terms of wealth.

I want to see a $4M check written to the IRS with her signature on it

put up or STFU

Last edited by rudutch; 01-28-2019 at 09:58 AM.
rudutch is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:06 AM
  #18  
SPIVET
CF Senior Member
 
SPIVET's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: U S A
Posts: 6,958
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Jasil View Post
Taxes should be raised a loopholes closed.
Are they giving out Corvettes to welfare/food stamp/sect 8 recipients now?
SPIVET is online now  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:12 AM
  #19  
VITE1
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VITE1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Port St Lucie FL Life is hard, Then you die, FL USA
Posts: 65,828
Received 44 Likes on 22 Posts
Cruise-In X Veteran
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Default

VITE1 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:25 AM
  #20  
vette6799
CF Senior Member
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 28,167
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
Default

Originally Posted by VITE1 View Post
What a moronic statement. The history of the federal income tax shows that no matter what the rate is actual revenue is always between 18-21% of GDP.

We don't have a tax rate /revenue problem. We have a spending problem. When do we address that issue?
I don't like higher taxes or a tax on net worth, but the US and many other countries have amassed massive loads of debt. At some point, this will have to be addressed. It is easy to say cut spending, but you have to be damned careful that you don't create a recession and end up shooting yourself in the foot with a reduce revenue stream.
vette6799 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: