SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:59PM (2 children)
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
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Monday April 22 2019, @11:36AM
> 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.