I have long opposed wealth taxes based on both constitutional and practical grounds. When Elizabeth Warren pushed her own wealth tax, I noted that the high starting income or wealth levels would likely be lowered with time if Congress were ever allowed to cross this constitutional Rubicon. The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) is now demanding an amendment to the state constitution to tax the “wealth of the richest 1%” to pay for free public college. Previously, the state passed a constitutional amendment to place a 4 % tax on income above $1 million. This would add a new wealth tax to that earlier “Fair Share Amendment.”
In a press release, the teachers union president Max Page declared: “if we are serious about social and economic justice and nurturing a culturally rich and welcoming state of involved citizens, we will provide all residents with the best vehicle for a prosperous future – public education.”
New York City socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has made a similar proposal that, in addition to taxing corporations, he will “tax the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers—those earning above $1 million annually—a flat 2% tax.” Not surprisingly, Warren recently declared Mamdani the future of the Democratic Party.
Massachusetts is already in the top ten highest tax jurisdictions. These tax increases are why many of us have opposed the state and local (SALT) tax deduction. As high-tax states continue to increase their rates, they expect residents in low tax states to subsidize them.
My forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, discusses the wealth tax controversy and how these moves are likely to increase in the coming years.
Imagine for a moment what the response would be to these posts provided by Professor Turley, from the mid-18th century British subjects in England, compared with those in the American colonies. Those in England might gripe and complain, but there would be little they could do about it. The colonists on the other hand would fiercely denounce the policy outright and add it the laundry list of “Intolerable Acts” that ultimately led to the DoI. The very idea that these controversial ideas have even a scintilla of room for debate today simply demonstrates how far this country has strayed away from the core principles held by our founding generation.
*. Ah yes, I’m looking at our House of lords and ladies. Jasmine nail salon tech Crockett, AOCs lovely gowns with ads, Cory Spartacus Booker, Nancy Hecate Pelosi, Jelly Belly McIvers, Palooka Padilla, Medusa Maxine, Turtle , Call girl Hegseth, Embezzler Santos, I-Shoot- Pets Noem, fire alarm guy…
Lot to work with in that line up. “Give me the car keys, co$#$uc&*#”.
Yeah, it worked out well. I was thinking about Robert E. Lee today. Lincoln asked him to head the Yankees. He said he couldn’t fight against his family. He headed the confederates after Johnston went down. He surrendered at the Appomattox Courthouse to Grant. So the story goes.
There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
It is hilarious and concerning that the left are now saying what amounts to communism is somehow ‘Constitutional’ and that our actual Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections are the opposite. I guarantee they are doing their level best through dollars and gaslighting to put these people in the pipeline for higher offices, and we had better ALL pay attention.
I foolishly thought some of this would improve after November, and it has only gotten exponentially worse. I’m comfortable calling our dems batsh** crazy at this point, in toto. I am concerned at what will happen to the rest of the country when all of these uber-blue places fail. Really. This is nuts.
It is hilarious and concerning that the left are now saying what amounts to communism is somehow ‘Constitutional’ and that our actual Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections are the opposite.
Honestly James, this is exactly what happens when “alien” ideologies to our constitutional system are allowed to percolate. Something seems to be tragically wrong with our 1st amendment. While we have plenty of laws and regulations restricting the freedom of conscience, the idea that anyone, especially in government are free to push Marxist, Socialist, Communist platforms is suicidal.
@Olly
No doubt. And you make a good point: be as Marxist as you like, just don’t drag it into what is *all* of our Constitutional Republic. It belongs to us.
At this point, that would appear to be what the dems are counting on. They have played the long game, and likely will continue to, hence their being infuriated at minorities and young men telling them to bleep off, institutions being purged, and laws actually being applied. Not only do we know precisely who they are: they do too, and they know their fantasy of power is in direct opposition to the founding principles of this country. I’m just glad they are getting desperate enough to vocalize it every chance they get so we can see them for who they are and what they represent. Hoping enough of us are sane enough to make note.
Communism is unconstitutional.
Oh, and unions are illegal and unconstitutional criminal organizations that no elected group has the power to give its power over to.
Every act of unions is a crime, including breach of contract, trespass, vandalism, threats, intimidation, property damage, and bodily injury.
No contracts with unions may ever be entered into by an elected body.
Communism and unions must be extirpated with extreme prejudice.
Labor laws and the Department of Labor are unconstitutional.
In fairness, private property enterprise laws and the Department of Private Property Enterprise would be required were those concepts valid and legitimate.
Of course, those absurd acts of bias and favor have no relationship to freedom, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in America.
When I read the headline for this piece, ‘Teachers Demand’……..I thought I was back in the anti-war era of the 1960’s with students and activists and ‘outside agitators’ making their non-negotiable demands.
I also remembered when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers in the early 1980’s —–
As Gordon Gekko said: ‘Greed is good, greed clarifies’….what a speech (the movie Wall Street 1987)—
In the 1930’s and 40’s, Unions did a lot of good for the working person — by the 60s and beyond, the greed and corruption of union leadership had become legendary – ask Jimmy Hoffa about the loyalty of union members and leadership.
It’s PUBLIC unions that are the problem.
‘Knowledge’ is wealth . . . Tax the hell out of the academicians.
Wealth taxes are the go-to tax proposal anywhere income taxes have reached absurd levels. The paradox is that bigger taxes generally lead to even bigger deficits, not smaller deficits. Eventually, liberals prove Arthur Laffer right, and wealth taxes are the beginning of that end. Just give it time.
Democrat economic planning:
Tax income.
Spend it all.
Then tax the wealth that was already taxed as income.
Spend all that, too.
Societal collapse.
Blame “Republican obstructionism” and imprison Trump.
Rinse and repeat.
Wealth-tax proposals are inherently contradictory and an admission of fiscal failure. If it were possible to tax wealth without damaging the economy, it would have already been taxed that aggressively as income. Like value-added taxes, wealth taxes are just double taxation of income by renegade politicians and ignorant voters when stated income tax rates are already prohibitively high.
“What makes a nation’s pillars high
And its foundations strong?
What makes it mighty to defy
The foes that round it throng?”
“It is not gold. Its kingdoms grand
Go down in battle shock;
Its shafts are laid on sinking sand,
Not on abiding rock.”
“Is it the sword? Ask the red dust
Of empires passed away;
The blood has turned their stones to rust,
Their glory to decay.”
“And is it pride? Ah, that bright crown
Has seemed to nations sweet;
But God has struck its luster down
In ashes at his feet.”
“Not gold but only men can make
A people great and strong;
Men who for truth and honor’s sake
Stand fast and suffer long.”
“Brave men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly…
They build a nation’s pillars deep
And lift them to the sky.”
(Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803 – 1882)
——————————————————–
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Experiments in socialism/marxism such as “free” public secondary education inevitably lead to nearly identical failed outcomes. Most beneficiaries of this kind of largess, with no investment in the scheme beyond their time, which is, at that point, of debatable value, find myriad ways to squander their unearned opportunities, leading the duplicitous politicians who sponsor such idiocy to double down and claim that the failures stem solely from the fault that not enough money was spent.
The last thing we need to do is feed more money into the bloated university system. But taxing the rich sounds fine to me. Nobody works hard enough to justify the income differential in our society. I think allowance should be made when the money is invested in important enterprises, like Musk does. But super yachts shouldn’t be subsidized by low tax rates when the economy is struggling or people are struggling. Nobody creates wealth by themselves. Society determines each person’s fair share. That’s democracy and the rule of law, which still operate despite how attractive plutocracy is to the rich.
“Nobody creates wealth by themselves.”
Welcome to the blog, President Obama!!
That post is intellectually vacant.
I’m old enough to remember an earlier “wealth tax” effort, and its utterly foreseeable consequences. How short are some of our memories, or are some commenters too young to have, or to have read about, them?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-lesson-of-economic-damage-from-taxing-the-rich-with-the-punitive-luxury-tax-in-the-1990s/
“Society determines each person’s fair share.”
Welcome to Cannibal Island.
This particular “Anonymous” thinks he gets to decide when someone is rich. I love when the guy making $200,000 says the guy making $400,000 should pay more in taxes and the guy making $400,000 says the guy making $600,000 should and on and on and on.
time to BAN public unions!
JFK can create them…Trump can END THEM!
Former Ambassador and Nazi sympathizer Joseph Kennedy promised the Union bosses if JFK was supported by the unions and elected as President he would expand the greedy reach of the Unions creating new sources of dues and of course graft. The public workers union, SEIU, continues to feed the DNC. I agree Public worker unions and also home rule in DC should be abolished.
if we are serious about social and economic justice…
Well that depends. Given the fact our entire constitutional system is rooted in the security of our unalienable rights, the question that needs to be answer is this: Will this “social and economic justice” initiative protect the liberty, dignity, and property of every individual equally, without infringing the rights of others? If not, then GFY!
It appears that teachers are no longer concerned about teaching. More interesting are trans, LGBTQ, and salary issues, and now the latest non-teaching issue is the support of wealth taxes.
If you recall, much of the auto industry was outsourced 50 years ago because the auto workers were no longer interested in making cars, but in wages and benefits.
Old enough to remember. Auto workers forgot that WW2 left Europe & Japan decimated and arrogantly thought this made them bulletproof. OOOPS
California Governor Ronald Reagan (Historical ref.):
How the Threat of an ‘Educated Proletariat’ Created the Student Debt Crisis
By: Genevieve Carlton, Ph.D., Edited By: Cobretti D. Williams, Ph.D. ~ May 6, 2025
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/threat-of-educated-proletariat-created-the-student-debt-crisis/
Notes: In the 1960s,
California’s public higher education systems, which included the University of California (UC) System, the California State College System (CSUC), and community colleges, did not charge tuition for in-state residents.
Background:
The 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California strongly endorsed low student charges and prohibited tuition (direct payment for instruction), considering fees the most important factor influencing student enrollment.
The Master Plan was designed to handle the influx of post-World War II baby boomers and promised free higher education for every California citizen.
Transition:
Although tuition was not charged, students were required to pay fees to cover non-instructional costs.
For example, the 1965-66 UCLA Course Catalog stated that tuition was free to students who had been a California resident for at least one year. However, the estimated annual cost for in-state residents at UCLA in fall 1965 was $1,710, with more than half of that cost attributed to on-campus room and board.
In 1968, Governor Ronald Reagan introduced the first tuition fees in the UC system, framing them as “student fees”. This sparked protests from students.
Fees continued to increase throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s
–
What happened to California’s free tuition? A history of fees and budget issues
“… Here’s a brief timeline of California’s history with tuition, and what made it become so steep.
1857: Minns’ Evening School, a training school for elementary teachers, was established in San Francisco. Years later, in 1862, the school became California State Normal School, then San Jose State Normal School in 1871 when the campus was moved.
1868: The Organic Act creates the University of California as a “complete university,” merging the then-private College of California in Oakland and a new state land-grant institution. Section 14 of the Act read: “as soon as the income of the University shall permit, admission and tuition shall be free to all residents of the State.”
1921: California colleges begin to charge “incidental fees” of $25 per year to cover non-instruction related services. Non-California residents are charged $75 per year for tuition, but residents are still tuition-free.
1960: The Master Plan for Higher Education in California maintains that tuition at University of California and state colleges should be free, but that fees are necessary to help cover non-instructional costs. “The two governing boards reaffirm the long established principle that state colleges and the University of California shall be free to all residents of the state.”
1966: Ronald Reagan assumed office of Governor of California and changed the course of the state’s higher education system. In his eight years, he cut state funding for college and universities and laid the foundation for a tuition-based system.
According to a New York Times article from 1982, during his eight years as governor, “Reagan fought hard in the legislature to impose tuition at four-year colleges. He lost the battle to lobbyists for the university, … However, the Legislature agreed to increase student registration fees.”
1975: Students at University of California schools are now paying $600 in fees and tuition—a number that would soon skyrocket.
1985: Annual tuition at UC schools reach nearly $5,200 for non-residential students and $1,326 for California residents. California state colleges near $500 in tuition, and community colleges begin to charge tuition for the first time—$5 per unit.
1995: Annual tuition at UC schools reach $4,139 in tuition for residents and $11,838 for non-residents. Fees and tuition at state colleges increase to $1,892 and community colleges cost $13 per unit.
2004: After years of budget cuts to the state’s higher education system, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, then-UC President Robert Dynes and then-CSU Chancellor Charles Reed agreed to “compact” that would develop ways to bring in money. Among the changes were more tuition increases.
2005: Annual tuition at UC Schools reaches $6,802 for residents and $24,622 for non-residents. California state colleges cost $3,163 per year and community colleges hit $26 per unit.
2009: California’s large deficit along with continues budget cuts to higher education lead to the UC Regents voting for a 32 percent increase in undergraduate tuition. The vote led to large-scale protests on various campuses, including at UC Davis, where 50 students were arrested following a protest in the lobby of Mrak Hall, the building that houses the Chancellor’s office.
The increase was levied in two stages: A mid-year increase in the 2009-2010 school year, which totaled $1,170 for the rest of the academic school year. The following school year, students saw another 15 percent increase that brought the total tuition over $10,000 for the first time for resident undergrads.
The CSU also had a tuition increase, though not as steep. Students saw a 10 percent increase in tuition each year from 2007 to 2011 and a 9.16 percent increase in 2012. In those five years, tuition jumped from $3,044 to $5,472 in full-time tuition.
Like the CSU and UC systems, California Community Colleges also increased tuition costs to $46 per unit.
2017: After a six-year freeze, the UC regents approved a 2.5 percent increase in tuition, putting costs for undergrads at $11,502 for the 2017-2018 academic year. Likewise, the CSU will increase its tuition by about $270 per year. ”
Author: Staff (ABC10 , KXTV – Sacramento, California) ~ August 22, 2017
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/what-happened-to-californias-free-tuition-a-history-of-fees-and-budget-issues/103-465128027
–
Free college was once the norm all over America
WASHINGTON– When people involved in the fight to cancel student debt demand free college education they are not calling for a new, radical idea. Countless numbers of lawmakers, for example, got their educations at free colleges that they now say are out of reach to the nation’s students. …
By: Jamal Rich ~ September 11, 2020
[Link] peoplesworld.org/article/free-college-was-once-the-norm-all-over-america/
That was not my experience in Georgia from 1966 on. Georgia Tech and Univ Ga had significant costs and this was mirrored by all the other state colleges and universities. They were approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the Tuition at Emory University (the major private university in the state) Emory ran on a 4 quarter/year system and was $465 a quarter in 1966, $550 a quarter in 1967, $600 a quarter in 1968 and $660 a quarter in 1969. Medical school at Emory was approx $ 2000 per year in 1970 but I did not go there so I do not know what it was after 1970. Medical College of Georgia was $ 900/year from 1970-1974. Never did hear of any no cost universities except for California (which we were aware of even in Georgia) when I was there. My experience also was that most of the southern states had tuition even for their state colleges. So I would say my experience was very different. Even Texas was not free even though cheaper than most. (The University system had significant holdings in the oil industry. Seemed to help the tuition costs stay low).
But this is off topic. I suspect if this law is enacted but not struck down, then the well off will leave and you will gather in others of lessor wealth or no wealth at all. I think that is what Sweden, France and the UK have noted in the past.
I read this with an abundance of question marks floating above me. What?? What does such lunacy have to do with a teacher’s union?
?????????? (There are some of the question marks).
The function of the union is to make sure a teacher has supplies, a safe environment, fair and balanced employment contracts.
The function of the teacher is to teach reading, how to write, how to do mathematics and most of all to light the fire of curiosity in their student. To give them the love of learning. They should have ZERO power for activism.
How bizarre!! Truly, the insane are running the asylum.
“What does such lunacy have to do with a teacher’s union?”
Lunacy and teacher’s unions have never enjoyed more than about 1/2 of 1 degree of separation. In the view of those unions (and, sadly, of most of their members) the function of a teacher’s union is to ensure that teachers’ salary and benefits are very much higher than would be the case in any evaluation of supply and demand by the free market, including full compensation for what amounts to three months of Summer vacation, while also ensuring that their members are required to do as little work as possible when actually on the job. Lest you accuse me of anti-union bias, those very attributes were described to my sophomore HS English class (albeit, cast in slightly more romantic terms) in 1966 by our newly minted Marxist teacher, who was eager to recruit students to join the union ranks after college. And, in case you should be tempted to ask, not one single word was uttered that could have been construed as extolling the satisfaction gleaned from imparting knowledge or skills to thirsty young minds.
When in some urban public schools it is acceptable that less than 50% of unionized teacher’s students “graduate” unable to do math or English at grade level, what else is left for teacher’s unions to do other than political activism?
Vincente,
This is an interesting read, One Of The Largest School Districts In Country Was Failing For Years. Then Republicans Took Over
https://dailycaller.com/2025/08/07/rooke-mike-miles-houston-independent-school-district-republican-takeover-democrats-education-failing/
The Teachers Unions run the Democratic party in the New England states.
Always starts with the very rich.
By the time they are done, the poor are fleeced.
Look at Russia; they ended up persecuting peasants who had a plot of land or a cow (kulaks).
It would take about a year for everyone subject to these taxes to remove themselves from the state. I remember when Sweden first tried to tax royalty income at 99%. They collected zero tax but lost most of the artists and writers within the first year. France tried it’s own version with similar results. But they never learn except the hard way.
Maybe politicians never learn because they are unteachable.
January 31, 2025 Headline: Maine students record lowest average math and reading scores in three decades
So, sure they need to fund college; they are doing such a bang up job in the rest of public education!
Hi jg, in what ways has the population in Maine changed over 30 years?
“to pay for free public college”
Not only do they get to indoctrinate your children with faculty lounge nonsense, but we’d all have to pay for it. Nice work, if you can get it.
Libs. They can never get enough of your hard earned money.
It’s no wonder the teachers union is so hated.
Whether the progs in MA want to admit it or not, wealth is mobile these days. Let the progs push the wealth out of their state and deal with empty coffers. There is no way that federal tax dollars should be used to facilitate that state’s slide in to insolvency. Teach the progs a hard lesson in economics and survival of the fittest.
Wealth is mobile only to the extent that there is somewhere to flee when the Dems get their hands into your pockets. At the moment we have Texas, Florida and a few more states but just wait. . . . .
There is an article: https://www.foxnews.com/travel/americas-wealthy-quietly-buying-way-out-golden-visas which illustrates just how mobile the truly rich are. What will be left in MA will be inner city blue cesspools and castellated colleges ignoring the mess that their ideologies created. The middle class will eventually fade away either through retirement or moving to more welcoming states. There is no good ending to socialism.
@whimsicalmama
Precisely. This is aristocracy all over again, but on steroids, and it can’t stand in our free country OR our free market. I am no xenophobe, but closing the border, for now, has been a great start.
Oh, and PS – I am no fan of the ‘golden visas’. The best people are not always the wealthiest, and if given the opportunity, the less initially advantaged might lift others up more than the silver spoons that bring their own form of cultural class division right along with them; I have seen too much to believe otherwise. Not a fan of H-1Bs either.