Below is my column on Fox.com on the new push by Democrats to impose a wealth tax nationally. While the proposal currently focuses on billionaires, this legislation would be a test case for the federal courts in asserting this new and unlimited tax authority. If allowed, Congress would then be able to set any wealth level for special taxation. At the same time, Democrats in states from Washington to Virginia are moving to impose a ten percent millionaire’s tax on income.
Here is the column:
“Enough is enough.” With those words, Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt) launched a push to impose a 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires. With Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.), the legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.
It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.
The timing of the move is telling. Not only is it calculated before the midterm elections, in which the Democrats hope to retake power, but it follows the push by California Democrats and unions to impose a similar wealth tax in that state.
Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, has supported the state law, which includes a ruinous provision for startup entrepreneurs. The law would not only be retroactive to try to trap wealthy taxpayers who have fled the state, but also base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, with start-ups, entrepreneurs hold greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, just in case they need more incentive to leave the state, they will be taxed as if their voting shares represented actual wealth.
The practical problem is that the wealthy, like their wealth, are mobile. As a result, many are fleeing California. So now Khanna is joining with the nation’s leading Democratic Socialists to ensure there is nowhere to hide in the United States. For billionaires in California, they could be double-tapped for ten percent of their wealth.
It has long been the dream of the far left. Years ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren delighted Democratic voters in her run for the presidency by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” In one debate, she dramatically rubbed her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.
In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the growing threat of “economic factionalism” as politicians fuel rage against the wealthy based on the false premise that they are not “paying their fair share.” While there are good-faith arguments for adjusting tax burdens to address budget demands, the top 1 percent pays more taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined.
There is little reason to believe that a wealth tax targeting billionaires will not, if upheld, be later extended to lower tax brackets, starting with multimillionaires. That is the signature of economic factionalism, which feeds an insatiable appetite for greater wealth seizure.
The Sanders-Khanna plan is notable in its express commitment to direct wealth redistribution. It also explains why the left has made the packing of the Supreme Court a priority. As Harvard professor Michael Klarman explained years ago, the radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election” requires control of the Supreme Court to uphold such measures.
The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.
Nevertheless, these politicians will continue to dangle wealth distribution before voters. They will demonize figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for their wealth while ignoring that these same figures are wealth and job creators, driving our economic growth. Instead, Sanders declared that “Billionaires cannot have it all.”
The irony of Rep. Khanna (who has been floating a run for President in 2028) turning on his own constituents in Silicon Valley underscores the appeal of wealth-redistribution campaigns. He is turning the very heart of his state’s economic growth as state deficits and out-of-state migration increase.
For Sanders, the legislation is a key moment to advance his long-standing socialist agenda. He declared the beginning of the end of “unprecedented income and wealth inequality” in the United States through such redistribution. The stated objective of erasing wealth inequality highlights how this is just the start and the end of wealth taxation.
As discussed in Rage and the Republic, none of this is new. Countries like France previously targeted the wealthy, triggering an exodus of taxpayers and their businesses from the country. It had to reverse its policy as the economy collapsed.
Of course, many young people have no memory of such failures in the 20th Century. Instead, they are drawn to the very same soundbites used in France and Great Britain before disastrous experiments with socialism. With no experience with socialist economies, figures like socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani can entice voters to “the warmth of collectivism.”
There are legitimate concerns over the glaring and growing wealth gap in the United States. However, a wealth tax is neither a constitutional nor a practical way of addressing the problem.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
It’s not just the taxes in California that are the problem. It’s also the regulations.
The socialist environmentalists are not a happy lot. Governor Gavin Newsom has focused on regulatory reform through “streamlining” initiatives aimed at accelerating infrastructure, housing, and clean energy projects. His administration has prioritized cutting “red tape”—such as broad CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) exemptions—to boost housing production and permitting flexibility for businesses like restaurants. Simultaneously, his office continues to implement significant new state-wide regulations in 2026, including labor protections, consumer health mandates, and environmental policies currently under review. Gavin Newsom has recognized the exodus of businesses from California and he says no wait. What is their response. TO LATE!
Communists gotta confiscate. It’s why they exist.
When you look at the 16th Amendment history, the original cry for passage was that the proposed “Income Tax” would only apply to the top 1% of wage earners. One could say it was the early evolution of “The rich aren’t paying their fair share” mantra. So Mr Turley is correct when he states a “Wealth Tax” will eventually extend down from billionaires to millionaires to thousandaires to people having a sawback (Hint: a $10 bill).
It reminds me of the old joke that the Income Tax Form could be simplified to a question and an answer. Q: How much did you make? A: Send it all in.
Great. Let’s celebrate 250 years of our nation and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations by giving the middle finger to both. Let’s do Willie Sutton: “I rob banks because that’s where the money is”. With taxes the bank can be your retirement savings, such as a 401(k). No more waiting until you die to impose state death and national estate taxes. On the States front the physical stock markets are already moving to red states out of blue states. Most state constitutions require balanced budgets. To limit government operations from intruding into our daily lives. The great vice of the current blue state tax initiatives is that using the financial back of the citizens to balance the budget upward is the unreasonable risk of breaking that back. Happy Birthday to us.
John Wesley is credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval
John Wesley (1703–1791) is
credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval of a French-style revolution through a massive spiritual and social revival. His Methodist movement transformed a degenerate society by promoting personal holiness, education, and social reform, which provided moral stability during a time of widespread societal tension.
John Wesley is credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval
“…entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity.” Each according to his ability. Each according to his need.
Leave the rich the hell alone. You want to reduce our GNP? Just dissuade the entrepreneurs from seeking wealth. It’s evident that non-billionaires blame the rich for accumulating what they would kill to have. It’s their fault they’re rich. They don’t deserve their money.
They should pay their fair share. They’ve been paying taxes all their lives, just like the rest of us. The poor reap the benefits of all their hard work, living like kings compared to the poor from poorer countries.
With honest, hard working citizens, taxes would shrink dramatically. Less prisons, less crime, less drug abuse, less cheating medicare and medicaid, less greed, greater generosity, on and on. But No. We can’t do that. It would take the spiritual revolution of society, and we can’t afford that. Spiritually is the problem, according to the God haters and deniers and THAT is what motivates them to demand secular answers to everything. They hate God, claim they can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Which proves God must exist, because indeed they hate Him, almost as much as they hate those who try to live for Him. They HATE. Their lives are built upon hatred.
The “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act” omits the key issue … “fair share of what”? Taxes are not supposed to be “a taking for no reason”; they are supposed to be “a taking for a good reason”. The Bernie Sanders tax is “a taking for no stated reason”.
The more government takes, the more it spends (after taking its “vig” off the top). The choice is clear: tax cuts (less money for government) v. tax increases (more money for government). May we all remember President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you”.
It will be interesting to see if the voters of Silicon Valley really want to commit economic suicide by re-electing Ro Khanna.
“…entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity.” Each according to his ability. Each according to his need.
Leave the rich the hell alone. You want to reduce our GNP? Just dissuade the entrepreneurs from seeking wealth. It’s evident that non-billionaires blame the rich for accumulating what they would kill to have. It’s their fault they’re rich. They don’t deserve their money.
They should pay their fair share. They’ve been paying taxes all their lives, just like the rest of us. The poor reap the benefits of all their hard work, living like kings compared to the poor from poorer contries.
With honest, hard working citizens, taxes would shrink dramatically. Less prisons, less crime, less drug abuse, less cheating medicare and medicaid, less greed, greater generosity, on and on. But No. We can’t do that. It would take the spiritual revolution of society, and we can’t afford that. Spiritually is the problem, according to the God haters and deniers and THAT is what motivates them to demand secular answers to everything. They hate God, claim they can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Which proves God must exist, because indeed they hate Him, almost as much as they hate those who try to live for Him. They HATE. Their lives are built upon hatred.
Well looks like time for the BIG MONEY to crank up the LOBBY MACHINE again and put this rabid idea to sleep. Just need enough EASILY BOUGHT OFF UNIPARTY CAREER TYPES to accept some donations and Dark PAC help to lightly obstruct this and should be “dead as fried chicken” per RFK Jr. Oh, and if Billionaires and Multi-Millionaires can leave a confiscatory state they can just as easily leave a confiscatory country. Maybe Bernie and Ro should explore FEDERAL BUDGET CUTS or is that like seeking BIGFOOT?
Isn’t it funny that none of these Slugs ever introduce a “insider trading politician” tax? What other industry can a nothing enter the workforce with a entry level paycheck and in a few short years bank a few million?
🎱You just sparked an idea. Amend the Sanders/Khanna Billionaire’s tax to include a provision that confiscates 90% of the increase in wealth of Senators and Representatives during the time they are elected to Congress, and 10% annually thereafter when they leave Congress.
A pair of idiots babbling like a pair of parrots.
Abd yet. Here you are.
LOL
Eight Ball,
Not lost on us how Nancy Pelosi would not allow for any kind of “insider trading politician” legislature to even be considered.
If you confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires living in the US, it would only cover the deficient spending for about 3+ years, than what? We have a spending problem, not a not enough tax problem.
How about solving the housing problem by limiting the number of houses one person can own? How many does one person need? Sen. Sanders owns three. Asking for a friend,,,
States like Massachusetts and New Jersey have passed “millionaire taxes” without seeing the predicted total collapse of their tax bases.
Billionaires may be more ‘mobile’ but that doesn’t mean the cost of moving will be cheaper than the cost of paying the tax. Billionaires don’t just rent a U-haul and move to a new state. They require massive expenses to move. Selling mansions, adding more travel expenses to continue to do business in the state where the majority of their wealth infrastructure is and the talent that supports it will still reside in the state they wish to leave. These “exoduses” are either short lived, or often too small to have any serious impact on a state economy.
Take Massachusetts, they implemented a millionaire wealth tax in 2023. The expected “exodus” did not happen. In fact it increased the number of millionaires by 39%. Instead of the expected $1 billion in extra revenue they got $2.2 Billion. More than double the expected revenue.
Simply being wealthy and very mobile does not mean they will immediately move to a lower tax state. Only a small minority do so. But the vast majority stay because of connections to the state, family, business connections, and the talent that allows them to continue to grow their wealthy are in the state. Massachusetts implemented a 4% wealth tax and they did not experience the exodus Turley’s alarmist views claim.
The exodus is hardly the result of tax laws george. Also you did not retail the number of millionaires and billionaires who allegedly departed. George will you stop lying please You’re been fact cheeked daily, Your every comment is filled with lies and distortions.
MA did not experience you say?
Massachusetts is experiencing a notable outflow of residents, particularly high-income earners and younger professionals, with taxes cited as a major factor.
High-income earners are leaving Massachusetts in significant numbers. IRS data shows Massachusetts lost $3.9 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) between 2021 and 2022, with 55% of that loss attributed to high earners (those making $200,000+), despite them accounting for only 22% of net outmigration.
The 4% millionaire’s tax on income over $1 million, approved in 2022, is a key driver. A 2024 survey of Massachusetts CPAs found 90% reported their high-income clients were considering leaving, with 55% citing the surtax as the primary reason.
Young professionals (26–44 years old) are a major group departing, accounting for 44% of the AGI lost. Many are relocating due to unaffordable housing and the ability to earn high salaries while working remotely in lower-cost states.
Despite claims by some that a “mass exodus” is a myth, reliable data from the IRS and Pioneer Institute confirm net outmigration and AGI loss, placing Massachusetts among the worst in the Northeast for population and income loss.
Public opinion supports this trend: a September 2024 poll found 65.7% of Massachusetts residents believe high taxes are a main reason people are leaving, with 87% of 18–34-year-olds saying taxes are too high.
While some argue that wealthy individuals are less likely to move due to strong professional and social ties, evidence from client reports and tax data suggests the tax policy is already influencing relocation decisions.
I can say one thing about george. When it comes the lying. He’s # 1.
Dustoff, what was the lie?
Why do you lie. It’s not hard to check george
————————-
The expected “exodus” did not happen.
No different when you claimed Trump would keep the new 747-8 for him.
Sorry the US Air force has it.
That’s simply not true, Dustoff. Anonymous cited 2021-2022 data, but the Massachusetts Millionaires Tax didn’t exist until 2023. It’s a pretty far fetched to blame a law for an ‘exodus’ that happened before the law was even passed. The migration he claims was a direct byproduct of pandemic-era economic shifts, not tax policy.
X-Lax isn’t # 1, he’s #2 – IYKWIM
Anonymous,
Your ‘mass exodus’ argument relies on looking in the rearview mirror. The IRS data showing income loss is from 2021-2022—before the Millionaire’s Tax even took effect. That migration was a nationwide post-pandemic trend driven by remote work and housing costs, not a reaction to a tax that didn’t exist yet.
If the tax were truly driving people out, we’d see state revenues cratering. Instead, the opposite happened: in its first two years, the tax generated $5.7 billion, nearly triple what was expected. Even more telling, the number of millionaires in Massachusetts actually grew by 38% between 2022 and 2024. People aren’t just staying for the ‘vibes’; they’re staying because the state’s talent pool and schools are worth the 4% surtax. The ‘collapse’ didn’t happen—the investment did.
Rearview huh? George you lost the argument, anon bested you. Now you want to toss in some nonsense rearview. You silly sore loser.
Lost the argument? He used the pandemic as an excuse. Plus the MA tax on millionaires did not come into effect until 2024.
That ‘nonsense’ rear view proves his argument is flawed.
George (X), how did MA do vis a vis Florida in the same time period? If your tax ideas are so benign why is NO-INCOME TAX Florida growing as MA, NY and NJ are shrinking?
Hullbobby, I’m surprised you even had to ask. Why didn’t you offer a comparison if you are wondering?
Massachusetts was recently ranked as the #1 state economy by some analysts (e.g., WalletHub 2025), cited for its massive investments in Research & Development and a high concentration of STEM and high-tech industries.
High-tax states like Massachusetts, New York, and Minnesota have historically seen stronger per-capita personal income growth than several no-income-tax states, including Florida and Texas.
Florida’s economy is noted for strong “economic health” but often lags in innovation potential, ranking significantly lower (28th) in areas like patents and entrepreneurial high-tech activity compared to Massachusetts.
Florida has been labeled one of the least fair tax systems in the U.S. because it relies heavily on sales and property taxes. This often results in lower-income families paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than they would in “high-tax” states like Massachusetts or New Jersey.
Recent Census data (2024) shows that Massachusetts and New Jersey actually experienced some of their strongest annual growth rates in decades, largely driven by a surge in international migration.
Much of Florida’s growth is driven by retirees seeking warmer climates and no income tax on fixed pensions, whereas states like Massachusetts remain hubs for young, high-skill professionals in biotech and finance, even if domestic “out-migration” of other groups persists.
Essentially smarter people who make more money choose to live in Massachusetts where they innovate and create more wealth than in Florida where people just go there to avoid taxes and spend more of their wealth on property and sales taxes.
If your retirement income is modest (e.g., primarily Social Security), you likely pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes in Florida due to sales taxes on everyday goods and high housing-related costs.
For wealthy retirees the sales tax and property taxes are cheaper. BUT the increasing home values and insurance cancels that benefit rather quickly.
The Massachusetts tax was an income tax not a wealth tax
It’s still a tax on millionaires. Of course Republicans will call any tax on the wealthy a wealthy tax.
It’s an income tax. The subject here is a wealth tax. Khanna and Sanders are proposing a wealth tax, not an income tax, and that is unconstitutional. (Or rather, it would have to be allocated among the states by population, and I haven’t yet seen an explanation of how that’s supposed to work that makes any sense.)
Millhouse, I don’t think it would work as a wealth tax (direct tax), but there is an alternative that is much better. A Financial transaction tax which is essentially an excise tax which is much harder to argue that it would be unconstitutional. A tax on every transaction like trades would not run afoul of the apportionment issue. Billionaires and the wealthy are always trading. Sometimes by millions of trades a second with the use of high speed computing. Taxing each trade by just .1% would gain almost $700 billion annually according to some reported estimates.
The subject here is the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
The subject here is the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
No, it isn’t. The equal protection clause is not relevant here. This is about the direct tax clause.
Same diff., its progressive…
No it’s not you idiot. Income is a flow variable, defined for a particular time period. Wealth is a stock variable. I have $3 m in accumulated wealth and my income is $150k per year.
No, it is not “same diff”. Income and wealth are very different things.
Well then X, why are the businesses deciding to move? They look at things from a long term perspective. They crunch the numbers and then make a decision. Yamaha has just decided to move from California to Georgia. Do you think they have made the decision without looking at the long term effects of higher taxes. They also are considered the reality that with the tax the rich crowd history has proved that too much is never enough. We know the real story with you. If you could you would take it all and give it to the state. A socialist through and through. One hundred years of the failure of socialist regimes and you’re still hanging on by a thread claiming that all you’re trying to do is to protect our democracy. Socialist vomit sprayed from the nose is unbecoming.
Thinkitthrough,
Business decisions are rarely about a single tax line; they’re about the total cost of operations. Yamaha moved its headquarters to Georgia primarily for cheaper land, lower utility costs, and proximity to its Southern manufacturing hubs—not just to dodge a wealth tax that hasn’t even passed yet.
If taxes were the only thing that mattered, California and New York would be ghost towns, yet they remain the top two economies in the U.S. because that’s where the venture capital and the elite talent live. This isn’t about ‘socialism’ or ‘taking it all’; it’s about closing a loophole where billionaires pay a lower effective rate than their own secretaries by living off loans instead of salaries. You can call it ‘socialist vomit,’ but asking the ultra-wealthy to pay the same percentage as a middle-class family is just basic fiscal fairness.
Single tax line? geez George you have no idea what you’re saying, state taxes are pass throughs, federal not, International taxes are credits, federal tax reducing. George the shit you make up is unbelievable.
No, you have no idea what you’re saying. It takes much more than a tax for a company to consider moving its entire operations to another state. I pointed out why the company you cited moved. It was not about the tax. It was a decision based on better financials regarding land, energy costs, and being closer to their hubs/supply chains.
Speaking of making stuff up. State taxes are pass throughs? Only S-Corps and LLCs are pass-throughs; C-Corporations absolutely pay entity-level taxes. State taxes are…taxes. Wow, talk about having no idea what you’re talking about.
“state taxes are pass throughs,“
ROFL!
Anonymous says state taxes are pass throughs. LOL!! Wow talk about stupid.
A “pass-through” is a type of BUSINESS—such as an S-corp, LLC, or partnership—where the company’s profits flow directly to the owners’ personal tax returns to avoid being taxed at the corporate level.
State taxes themselves are simply an expense or an obligation, not a “pass-through”. LOL! What an idiot.
; it’s about closing a loophole where billionaires pay a lower effective rate than their own secretaries
That’s a lie.
by living off loans instead of salaries.
If they’re not receiving a salary then they have no income, so why should they pay any tax. A loan is not their money; it has to be repaid. And the company which earns the money is paying tax on it.
Millhouse, that’s an oversimplification. While many billionaires take a symbolic $1 salary to minimize income tax, others take ‘modest’ six-figure salaries that are negligible compared to their net worth.
The real ‘magic’ is that they don’t live off income—they live off debt. By borrowing against their stock as collateral, they access millions in tax-free cash without ever ‘realizing’ a capital gain.
They can even let the bank recoup the loan by selling the collateral later, or simply hold the debt until they pass away, allowing heirs to settle it with assets that receive a tax-free step-up in basis
TiT,
Well said.
Does not take a college degree to do the math, and see the smart decision is to leave a high tax state like the failed state of CA for a better one.
Take Massachusetts, they implemented a millionaire wealth tax in 2023. […] Massachusetts implemented a 4% wealth tax
No, they didn’t. You’re simply lying. Massachusetts passed a 4% tax on income after the first $1M. Income, not wealth. You thought no one would notice and you’d get away with the lie. Either that or you’re so stupid that you have no idea what a wealth tax is, in which case you have no right to an opinion on the subject.
I missed that Milhouse, thanks!
Milhouse,
Thank you for bringing facts to the table.
Millhouse, quibbling over semantics? Fine. It’s amusing that you think ‘income tax’ vs. ‘wealth tax’ is some kind of ‘gotcha’ that invalidates the whole point. If you want to quibble over semantics, go ahead. It’s an income-based millionaire’s tax—happy?
Now, what’s up with the performative insults? Did I offend/insult you in some way?
Income tax vs wealth tax is not semantics and you know it.
Hullbobby, again, it’s besides the point. I ready conceded they are not the same. Try to keep up.
X, any comment on the whole idea being, you know…unconstitutional?
BTW, just because MA “has more, not fewer millionaires since the new tax” does not mean it doesn’t have a deleterious effect on the state. Check out population stats, check out who is leaving, check out how they will be losing a congressperson in 4 years.
Hullbobby, if you paid any attention to my other posts you would see I did comment on the constitutionality problem.
“ BTW, just because MA “has more, not fewer millionaires since the new tax” does not mean it doesn’t have a deleterious effect on the state.”
Deleterious effect? Like getting billions more in revenue than expected and using to expand their education system and public transportation? How would that be….deleterious?
“Billionaires don’t just rent a U-haul and move to a new state. They require massive expenses to move. “
You act as if Billionaires have only one home. Most have many. Homesteading is a simple process that can be handled by a secretary who can bring the papers to the Billionaire for a signature.
S. Meyer,
You are correct.
For them moving is having their secretary hire a moving company of what they want to keep, and move. Other times they will simply sell things that can be replaced and then sell the house.
X is using AI to help him carry his message, which is much better than when he lied about everything. On complex issues, where he lacks understanding, he copies whole sentences, knowing he cannot rewrite them without making a mistake. That is OK as far as I am concerned. However, he is unable to integrate many of these thoughts in concert with his ideology. AI requires the perspicacity he lacks.
S. Meyer, you continue to be confused by the use of a tool to enhance a point. Using it to integrate my thoughts is exactly why it’s useful. What I don’t understand is why YOU don’t take advantage of it. It would help you immensely in the coherence department.
Even professor Turley uses it. A few months ago he admitted he has been using Grammarly to help him avoid the embarrassing grammar and spelling mistakes in his columns. It also has an AI feature to help make his articles more fluent. The fact that a ‘distinguished constitutional scholar’ and prolific writer like Turley needs Grammarly is not because of a lack of proficiency. It’s because it enhances his skill. Even professionals use AI effectively to get an edge. It would be a mistake not to in a world where those who don’t know how to use it will be at a disadvantage.
“ On complex issues, where he lacks understanding, he copies whole sentences, knowing he cannot rewrite them without making a mistake.”
On the contrary, it helps in understanding complex issues and allows you to condense them into a context or nuance that would make it easier for most to understand. It also allows you to…learn instead of remaining ignorant. You should give it a try S. Meyer you’d be surprised at how much more you can learn with it.
GSX, there is no problem in using AI as a tool. I generally don’t bother because I don’t engage my pen when I don’t know what I am talking about. You do engage without knowledge, and AI has made your engagement more truthful, but your lack of understanding of a subject kills your standing in the blog. It is funny that you think I know very little. When you read about what a homestead is, maybe that will teach you a thing or two and might incentivize you to learn more.
S.Meyer: In several past comments to George/X, I have opined that it appeared that he was confused (as well as disengaged from his own advice to others on context and comprehension). He now has frequently noted that his addressee is “confused.” I’m waiting to start seeing ‘perspicacity’ in his comments….
Getting back, then, to substantive commentary, I agree with what you said about “no clear exit strategy,” but I don’t want to lead this thread OT, so ‘nuf said.
” I’m waiting to start seeing ‘perspicacity’ in his comments….”
I don’t think you will ever see that. The best we can hope for is that he looks the word up in the dictionary.
Thanks for agreeing on the idea of a clea exist strategy. I find it clear, but those who always obfuscate the truth can’t see it when the truth slaps them in the face.
Upstatefarmer, of course it’s always so simple. Just let your secretary know. No mention of the logistics, costs, commissions, search for a new home, buy land, build, or buy an existing home, etc, etc. That is a lot of things to ponder and spend money on just to avoid paying a tax that may be less than the cost of moving.
Then there’s the commute. Jet setting to the state where your business is every day can be not only very expensive, but also a lot of time away from their new home. But hey, it’s a choice, right?
????????
S. Meyer,
“ You act as if Billionaires have only one home.”
Act? I don’t act. I did not even say they only have one home. Reading minds again S. Meyer?
“ Most have many.”
No sh!t Sherlock. Why would any of them just have one home when they can have vacation homes anywhere. That would be pretty obvious wouldn’t it?
“ Homesteading is a simple process that can be handled by a secretary who can bring the papers to the Billionaire for a signature.”
S. Meyer, do you know what homesteading is? What billionaire is going to own a bunch of land and live off of it? Especially when they have….billions of dollars.
You know homesteading is about self reliance, right?
It’s about producing what you consume—growing your own food, raising livestock, and maintaining your own systems—rather than just owning the land.
If a billionaire pays others to do the work while they just sign papers, it’s either an investment property or a hobby farm, not a homestead.
I assume you have been watching too much Yellowstone and got a little confused.
There’s one thing that is certain: neither Sanders nor Khanna will increase their own pain. Sanders, a multimillionaire who owns at least three climate changing homes, will not suffer one bit. Khanna is hardly poor by any measure, either. Democrats never want to reach into their own pockets for the wealth they want to give away. It’s always taken from the forgotten man. Democrat pickpockets are ideological shameless.
Bernie Sanders’ net worth is estimated to be around $3 million as of recent reports. All in real estate; based on his annual salary, that wealth accumulation is “in line” with his employment. This represents a significant increase from earlier in his career, when he was among the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate.
Ro Khanna’s net worth is estimated to range from $27 million to over $100 million, based on financial disclosures and public reports. The wide range reflects the limitations of congressional disclosure rules, which report assets in broad categories rather than exact values. One could call him a self made man.
“The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.”
Actually, the Constitution doesn’t bar this. In Moore v. United States, Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion clarified that Congress has wide latitude to define what constitutes ‘income.’ Under the Taxing Clause, Congress has broad authority to tax for the ‘general welfare.’ If a wealth tax is structured as an excise tax—targeting the privilege of holding vast property rather than the property itself—it avoids the requirement for apportionment among the states.
This is a necessary fix for the ‘Buy, Borrow, Die’ loop: billionaires avoid traditional income taxes by never selling their stocks, instead living off low-interest loans. This makes their effective tax rate significantly lower than the average worker’s. By redefining these massive capital transfers or unrealized gains as taxable events, Congress can finally close the gap between nominal tax rates and the reality of how modern wealth is used.
Justice Amy Coney Barret’s concurrence however seems designed to blunt any nationwide wealth tax by categorizing it as a ‘property tax’ instead. Which would make it harder to let states impose one on their own. But that poses a problem for those who claim the justices are not there to interpret, just read what the constitution says and there is absolutely nothing that would disallow Congress to define what Income is as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out. Barrett is the one adding a definition that does not exist.
Is there a point somewhere in that jumble of words?
Fortunately, words do have definitions and income cannot be interpreted as already existing property. Further, a minimum of research into the origin of the law would confirm that it was intended for income and not pre-existing wealth
The Constitution doesn’t actually define ‘income’—it leaves that up to Congress and the courts. In the 2024 Moore v. United States decision, the Supreme Court even reaffirmed that Congress has broad power to decide what counts as a taxable event.
As for the ‘wealth tax’ vs. ‘property tax’ issue, the big difference is who is doing the taxing. States can tax property however they want. But the Federal government is tied down by the ‘Apportionment Clause,’ which says any direct tax on property must be divided up among the states perfectly by population. That is mathematically impossible to do with a national wealth tax, which is why people argue it’s unconsitutional at the federal level. To get around this, it can be argued that a wealth tax should be treated like an excise tax—a tax on the privilege of holding massive wealth—rather than a direct tax on the property itself.
In Moore vs United States Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion noted that while the Court has often required “realization,” it also has a long history of allowing Congress to attribute an entity’s realized income to its shareholders.
The Court majority avoided deciding whether “realization” is a strict constitutional requirement for all income taxes, leaving the door slightly open for future wealth tax debates. It was not fully determined.
The idea of targeting financial transactions as way to avoid the direct tax issue is constitutionally sound. A financial transfer tax so to speak would be an ‘income tax’ for the ultra rich. Since they don’t really get an income the traditional way.
We are but one election away from the loss of our democratic capitalist republic and thus our freedom. A wealth tax is a confiscation of property absent any economic activity. The Dems have been waging an assault on property rights for some time through the regulatory state. A wealth tax is a culmination of that effort to relive us our burdensome wealth which is foundational to our freedom and turn it to their on power. The warmth of collectivism comes from the barrel of a gun aimed at us to protect our overlords. There is nothing altruistic about the Democrat party.
“already pay higher income tax than in almost all European countries. Irrelevant.
Europe doesn’t have as many billionaires as the USA. Keep in mind that the “Ability-to-Pay Principle” is applicable here, but not there. This concept holds that individuals and entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity. Those with higher incomes, wealth, or consumption levels are expected to pay more because they can afford to bear a greater tax burden without significant hardship. This principle is rooted in the work of 18th-century economist Adam Smith, who stated that citizens should contribute to government support in proportion to their ability.
As of 2025, the U.S. is home to 924 billionaires, far surpassing Europe’s total. In contrast, Europe collectively has 954 billionaires, but this number is spread across many countries. The largest concentration in Europe is in Germany (156 billionaires), followed by the UK (91), France (46), and Italy (61). However, even the combined total for Europe is still lower than the U.S. count.
The U.S. also leads in combined billionaire wealth, with $6.9 trillion, compared to Europe’s $3.1 trillion. This reflects the U.S.’s dominance in innovation, entrepreneurship, and financial markets.
That’s right. And that’s because here we don’t punish them for being billionaires as they do in Europe. So the people who create and innovate are here rather than in Europe. Impose this tax and that will change.
Actually, in both California and New York, income taxes for the highest earners is above what they would pay in income tax in almost all Europe.
This principle is rooted in the work of 18th-century economist Adam Smith, who stated that citizens should contribute to government support in proportion to their ability.
That’s a dishonest clipping of Smith’s words, which deliberately misstates his position. What he wrote was: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state”. In other words, taxes are a payment for the benefit each person gets from government, and should be levied only in proportion to that benefit. The rich benefit more than the poor, so they should pay more, but in proportion to the difference in their benefit.
Nowadays in the USA the rich pay far more as a proportion of the benefit they get from government, and indeed in many cases they pay more that that benefit is even worth, so that they’d actually be better off without the government at all. That is outright robbery, and cannot be justified by any moral principle.
How much do the rich and poor pay relatively as a proportion of the benefits they get from Disneyland?
The rich do get more benefits from Disneyland, and do pay more for them. Both at each visit, and in the number of visits. Read a text on price theory to see how it’s done.
The question needs to change from “where can we collect more money” to “where is our money going now?” The fraud and abuse should be every politician’s main concern.
We are essentially pouring tax dollars into a war of choice. In just the first week of Operation Epic Fury, the Pentagon burned through over $11.3 billion—with $5.6 billion spent in the first 48 hours alone just on munitions. We’re using $4 million interceptors to stop $20,000 drones, which is a losing mathematical game for our stockpiles.
Meanwhile, the administration seems blindsided by the rise of Mojtaba Khamenei, and as long as Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices will keep climbing toward $4 a gallon. Even with U.S. escorts, shipping companies aren’t willing to risk their tankers, and trying to protect them all would only drain our high-end missile supplies even faster. It’s a massive drain on resources with no clear exit strategy.
“. . . Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz . . .”
That a dictatorial, terrorist regime can do that, doesn’t give you pause?
It should have given Trump a pause. It’s obvious he and his administration had no idea Iran could do or would do that. Based on that glaringly bad assumption they didn’t plan on it. Now it basically blew up in their face and they have no idea how to deal with it.
We attacked them for no reason. Trump still can tell anyone why we chose to do so. The reasons change by the day and none make any sense nor showed any evidence of an ‘imminent threat’.
It’s getting out of control and Trump is already regretting it. Because he got rolled hard by Netanyahu and now he’s trying to save face….somehow.
“We attacked them for no reason.”
40 years of being the world’s greatest state sponsor of *terrorism* seems to be a pretty good reason.
The Left’s willful blindness (especially on this issue) is a disgusting betrayal of America, Israel, those who desire peace in the Middle East, and of the Iranians who yearn for freedom.
The war, which is the business of government and why it exists in the first place costs far less than welfare, which the government has no business providing. It even costs less than the fraud in welfare. And it costs less than your party squandered on the illegal aliens that it deliberately invited into the country.
Millhouse, It’s an interesting take, but the Preamble of the Constitution explicitly lists ‘promoting the general welfare’ alongside ‘providing for the common defense’ as the government’s purpose. Beyond that, even if you combined every dollar lost to improper payments across the entire government, it still wouldn’t come close to the $800+ billion we spend on defense annually.
Heck, it’s now closer to nearly a trillion dollars in defense spending.
Illegal aliens whether they were invited or not, still added to federal revenue ($150 Billion). We want that, don’t we?
So what? ( I don’t necessarily agree with the details)
“no clear exit strategy.”
Exit strategies in war are never 100% clear. For this type of war, Trump’s exit strategy is reasonably clear. No nukes, limitations on offensive weaponry, and an end to the support of terrorist states. No nukes is the most clear. The Dems say “no exit strategy” because they need to say something. Trump is doing a great job, and they have nothing to say.
S. Meyer, Actually, an exit strategy explains how you leave the conflict without it collapsing. Listing ‘no more terrorists’ is just a mission statement. You can’t drive home on a mission statement. Did you forget Bush’s famous “mission accomplished” fiasco?
After we were “faithfully” negotiating with Iran we attacked them while they still believed we were negotiating. Now they will want nukes even more. Because those who have them don’t get attacked. North Korea, and Pakistan have them. Do we dare attack them like we did Iran? No. Of course not. That would be stupid wouldn’t it?
” Listing ‘no more terrorists’ is just a mission statement. “
George, Svalez, X, et. al., why do you wish to prove you are more ignorant than most believe? I didn’t say, ‘no more terrorists.’ Trump wants ‘an end to the support of terrorist states.’
“. . . we were “faithfully” negotiating with Iran . . .”
The U.S. has been negotiating with and appeasing Iran, and sending them cash, for over 40 years. How has that worked out?
Bullies and dictators love “negotiation.” It buys them time. Until it’s too late. See Hitler and Neville Chamberlain.
J G Gordon,
Well said!!
But as we have seen from the fraud in MN, fraud and abuse favors the Democrat party.
Forget the 16th amendment. Packing the Supreme Court will take care of that.
Forget the illegals voting problem, Packing the Supreme Court will take care of that.
Forget the Electoral College problem. Annexing DC and Puerto Rico will take care of that.
Forget the “taxing the rich” problem. The ultra rich have always escaped taxes.
Think of taxes as in “The Blob” film from years ago. Taxes eventually claim everyone.
Think of illegals as our new friends – originating from everywhere – with freshly minted citizenship papers.
Annexing DC and Puerto Rico
They don’t need to be annexed. DC is already part of the USA, and PR already belongs to it. You mean making them states. That’s a very different thing from annexation.
Those with high wealth living in California and New York already pay higher income tax than in almost all European countries. Why do Democrats not feel that is sufficient?
Because they want far more than Europe delivers in terms of domestic and foreign aid, including far more comprehensive health coverage than the most generous of Europe’s nations, and refuse to take “no” for answer.