Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 07 2019, @12:19AM   Printer-friendly

April 2, 2019

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, announced today that he would soon release a proposal to eliminate massive tax breaks enjoyed by the wealthy on their capital gains income. If successful, the proposal would ensure that income from wealth is taxed just like income from work.

His plan, which he has promised to flesh out in a white paper in the coming weeks, would tax the appreciation of assets owned by the very wealthy as income each year, an approach known as mark-to-market taxation. It would also subject that income to ordinary tax rates rather than special, lower income tax rates that apply to capital gains.

https://itep.org/sweeping-reform-would-tax-capital-gains-like-ordinary-income/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-democrat-proposes-annual-tax-on-unrealized-capital-gains-11554217383


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @08:05AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 07 2019, @08:05AM (#825692)

    Government can't tax idle assets

    Nonsense. The government already taxes idle assets in the form of licenses and permits for cars, firearms and television sets as well as the usual municipal property taxes. The government can easily pass a "Must have a license/permit for owning property of any kind" and set it at 20% the market value but say you only need to pay, say, a year after taking ownership.

    They can even extend the concept of property deeds to every asset as a legal framework and mandate courts won't acknowledge ownership unless the assets are registered and have their associated yearly taxes paid for.

    And what's really good about this is the potential to fix the patents and copyrights issues with simple market forces: Suddenly companies won't be able to sit on patents and not license them or manufacture them since they'll bleed over it. No one will be able to hoard generic pharma patents just to sell their own old brand. No one will be able to keep a better engine / battery design from entering the market just because they don't want to upgrade their factory line.

    Good law. Very good law.

  • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday April 07 2019, @06:28PM (12 children)

    by exaeta (6957) on Sunday April 07 2019, @06:28PM (#825876) Homepage Journal

    Government can tax your right to drive a car on the road, it cannot tax a car in storage.

    Your idea is not valid, and will not pass muster in our legal framework. It would be declared unconstitutional in a heartbeat. Of course, it's also possible to amend the constitution.

    --
    The Government is a Bird
    • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Monday April 08 2019, @01:59PM (11 children)

      by Muad'Dave (1413) on Monday April 08 2019, @01:59PM (#826151)

      Have you not heard of personal property taxes [henrico.us]??? We have to pay all sorts of tax on stuff we simply own and that isn't driven on roads.

      • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:12PM (10 children)

        by exaeta (6957) on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:12PM (#827489) Homepage Journal
        Personal property taxes are unconstitutional. A small county can get away with it, for a few years, until they piss off a lawyer or rich person.
        --
        The Government is a Bird
        • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:28PM (9 children)

          by Muad'Dave (1413) on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:28PM (#828132)

          > Personal property taxes are unconstitutional.

          Apparently not [wikipedia.org], at least at the state- or locality level. Remember that the US constitution only applies to the Federal government.

          > A small county can get away with it, for a few years ...

          How about all of the existing states bar one as early as 1796 [wikipedia.org]?

          I can understand wishing they were unconstitutional, but actually believing it borders on delusional.

          • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday April 12 2019, @01:02AM (8 children)

            by exaeta (6957) on Friday April 12 2019, @01:02AM (#828413) Homepage Journal

            You may be a bit confused. Just because a law is passed does not make it constitutional. Judicial review normally happens after a law is passed and enforced, not before. It's fairly common for unconstitutional stuff to continue for 40 years or more before someone decides to challenge it in court, and win.

            Some things, like abortion restrictions, get challenged right away, but other stuff can be unconstitutional yet go unchallenged for decades before it finally is challenged and struck down by a federal court.

            --
            The Government is a Bird
            • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Monday April 15 2019, @07:01PM (7 children)

              by Muad'Dave (1413) on Monday April 15 2019, @07:01PM (#829980)

              I am not the least bit confused. Property taxes have been around for over 220 years. Don't you think one of your hypothetical 'rich people' would have challenged them and had them overturned by now if they were actually unconstitutional?

              • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday April 17 2019, @12:50AM (6 children)

                by exaeta (6957) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @12:50AM (#830745) Homepage Journal
                Again, real property (land) is different from personal property. Your land isn't property you own, you're borrowing the government's authority to exclude others from it. Movable property is less taxable than immovable property.
                --
                The Government is a Bird
                • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:39PM (5 children)

                  by Muad'Dave (1413) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:39PM (#831046)

                  Explain these non-real estate taxes [henrico.us], then. And by the way, Henrico county has been around since 1634 or so in the form of one of the original Shires of Virginia, so there's been plenty of time for these taxes to be contested.

                  • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:59PM (4 children)

                    by exaeta (6957) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:59PM (#831183) Homepage Journal
                    Look, a small county in a rural state. Not too surprising. Anyway, as I've said before, only federal court rulings are evidence of legality under the takings clause (state courts cannot set federal precedent), not the fact the county is doing something. So unless you can provide a citation to a federal court opinion supporting your position I'm just going to defer to the constitution, the takings clause, and the prohibition on direct taxes in the constitution.
                    --
                    The Government is a Bird
                    • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:40AM (3 children)

                      by Muad'Dave (1413) on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:40AM (#831577)

                      > I'm just going to defer to the constitution, the takings clause, and the prohibition on direct taxes in the constitution.

                      As you've said, the constitution forbid the FEDERAL government from levying direct taxes. It does not, however, forbid states or localities from doing so. There are reasons for state/locality property tax matters to appear before the supreme court, but they are not addressing the legality of the taxation, just whether it's otherwise legally applied (see examples, below).

                      Here's one from 1939 for you to read that clearly shows the legal opinion then (nothing has changed since then) [indiana.edu]. Here's an excerpt, emphasis mine:

                      With the general provisions of the Federal Constitution
                      delegating the taxing power to the Federal government, as
                      supplemented by the Sixteenth Amendment, there is almost
                      no limit in theory or in fact to the Federal taxing power.
                      Nevertheless, there is one important form of taxes which is
                      without its scope. This is the ordinary property tax. The
                      reason is, of course, that a property tax is a direct tax, and
                      the Constitution provides that direct taxes imposed by the
                      Federal government must be apportioned among the states
                      according to population.1 It needs no argument that this
                      practically precludes the Federal government from imposing
                      a property or other direct tax.
                      The importance of this limitation is being understood more
                      and more with the present enormous extension of the burden
                      of Federal taxes; but even yet it is probably not fully realized.
                      The property tax is the only tax which can be imposed by
                      the states and their subdivisions which cannot be likewise
                      imposed by the Federal government.

                      Here's another [franczek.com] that asserts:

                      It is highly unusual for a state court property tax dispute to migrate to federal court. Overwhelmingly the federal courts have declined jurisdiction of state and local tax matters. Only when the state court remedy denies the plaintiff a plain, speedy and efficient remedy will the federal courts consider a case.

                      I'm not going to continue trying to educate you - you seem stubbornly convinced that the US constitution applies in situations where it clearly does not. I recommend a Civics 101 course to introduce you to the concept of separation of powers between the Federal and State governments.

                      • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:59PM (2 children)

                        by exaeta (6957) on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:59PM (#832729) Homepage Journal

                        Oh yeah, the states can do direct taxes, except TFA mentions a federal bill! Ron Wyden is a U.S. Senator, not a State Senator. So yeah, that argument is invalid. Attention to detail is important when doing legal analysis. You seem to think I'm uneducated, but may be failing to consider the possibility you may be painting things with too broad a brush?

                        You keep quoting non-authorative sources. Is there any point in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to read primary sources? Unless a judge writes it, the interpretation is not law. If you want to make a legal argument, you need to cite primary sources. You can cite statutes, judicial opinions, etc. Even the other writings of people who helped write a bill are fair game. Secondary sources have little to no value here, especially given the room for context dependent misunderstandings.

                        Also, citing universities and academic articles is generally bad practice. Most universities lean towards a "liberal" interpretation of the law, and there is a 5-4 "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court. Same with your ad hominem "civics 101" comment. You may think you understand it, but I doubt you actually do.

                        If you honestly think that taxing idle assets like this would be treated as "income" by the Supreme Court and not a "regulatory taking" I find it hard to swallow. If a tax applies to only specific person's property and is not uniform it becomes a taking, not a tax. The label a government uses, e.g. "penalty" or "tax" or "taking", is irrelevant for constitutional purposes. This is why the the Affordable Care Act "penalty" was upheld as within the federal taxing power. It was within the constitutional definition of a tax, even if not intended to be one. Likewise, this "wealth tax" would be considered a taking, not a tax, so is not constitutional. If the tax singles out a category of people to apply a property tax, then it is a taking not a tax because of the non-uniformity.

                        Venue where a court adjucates a dispute and the body of law that applies to it are different things. State courts cannot set federal precedent. see the Suprme Court's decision in England et al. which may explain it for you. This is well known in the legal field and I don't feel like writing a brief to teach a know it all.

                        --
                        The Government is a Bird
                        • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:24PM

                          by exaeta (6957) on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:24PM (#832739) Homepage Journal
                          And yes, perhaps my original statement should have read something like: Personal property taxes enacted either by the federal government or where the state applies them based on personal characteristics are uncosntitutional post ratification of the 14th amendment, and the remaining property taxes are supported by weak case law which is likely to be overruled by a conservative 5-4 majority based on the natural tendency of textuallism to find them forbidden by the takings clause. But do you really expect me to graind you with the details and exceptions when you admit to thinking the constitution doesn't apply to states? Seriously you need to get some knowledge outside of academia first.
                          --
                          The Government is a Bird
                        • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Monday April 22 2019, @11:36AM

                          by Muad'Dave (1413) on Monday April 22 2019, @11:36AM (#833339)

                          > Is there any point in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to read primary sources?

                          You ask me for citations - I have seen exactly zero citations from you to support your case.

                          Cite a single case of a state or locality being prevented from implementing a property tax based on it being against the US constitution for them to do so (not that they applied it unfairly, etc).

                          > If you honestly think that taxing idle assets like this would be treated as "income" by the Supreme Court and not a "regulatory taking" I find it hard to swallow.

                          I think we're vehemently agreeing here. It would clearly be unconstitutional for the federal government to do so. The whole point of my original post was your assertion that _all_ property taxes were unconstitutional. When applied by a state or locality, that is clearly not the case.