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.”
For the 2nd rime, Bill Gates is in favor of the WA state tax.
Who cares what Bill Gates thinks.
Windows free since 2003!
So is Jeff Bezos.
And again, who cares.
I dont care what Mark Zukerburger thinks either.
Unless it has to do with running the country, I do not really care what Trump thinks either.
Hey dave… Why did he move??????????????
David B. Benson is a joke!
Bill “Epstein” Gates has no credibility left and could care less about any tax; he is worth $107.7 billion, and his wealth increases by as much as $16 billion per year.
Bill “Epstein” Gates is free to send a check to the government anytime he likes.
AI Overview
Bill Gates’ personal wealth fluctuates significantly year-over-year, driven primarily by the appreciation of his massive investment portfolio rather than a traditional salary. While his net worth has grown by billions in some years, such as a $16 billion increase in 2019, it has also seen substantial recent declines due to his commitment to give away virtually all his wealth by 2045.
Geese and golden eggs, anyone?
The income tax started out as a “tax on the rich” for a small percentage of income……………..and we all know what that devolved into.
OT
The U.S. must insert Special Operations Forces and escalate to tactical nukes to stop Iran’s attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, acting jointly with other nations in the region.
Millionaire and billionaire taxes are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Act.
Millionaire and billionaire “persons” enjoy the equal protection of the law and cannot be discriminated against and taxed differently from other “persons.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Really? Lay out the facts then…
Sen. Bernie Sander Net worth:
>$2 million or more
> Real estate portfolio includes 3 properties.
> Beyond his $174,000 annual Senate salary, substantial income has come from his bestselling books, his mutual funds & annuities
> While often considered on the lower end of net worth for U.S. Senators historically, his earnings placed him firmly as millionaire.
UPDATE: I just spoke to two different H&R tax experts (H&R did my taxes) and neither one could answer my question, although both said they understood it as a viable question.
See, here’s the four-squares of it: Some of the commenters below are correcting other commenters by saying this is a wealth tax, not an income tax. As I stated in my earlier comment, I understand that the wealth tax proposal is separate from income tax. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINKS THAT PROFESSOR TURLEY PROVIDED, they say this:
“HB 188, introduced by Virginia Beach Del. Kelly Convirs-Fowler, would add a 10% tax on income over $1M, directing new revenue to schools, child care and housing…..House Bill 188, introduced by Del. Kelly Convirs-Fowler of Virginia Beach’s 96th House District, would create a new income tax bracket starting in the 2026 tax year. The proposal would impose a 10% tax on annual income exceeding $1 million.”
As I contemplated earlier, there is the question of tax-deferred, unrealized assets/pass-throughs, etc. The proposed “wealth tax” is ostensibly based on “income.”
I guess the bottom line is that if your TAXABLE INCOME is more than a billion, you may be subject to an additional wealth tax BASED ON THAT AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME, not on whether you are deemed a billionaire based on your total assets/net worth. So in the end, this is no different from graduated tax tables (legal) and the question here appears to be one more of equitable fairness than legal authority, if this makes sense to anyone reading this.
Idk, I’ve never checked the tax table for $1,000,000.00.
You’re guessing, you said so yourself. Play with facts not guesses.
The only fair solution is a National Sales tax to replace(not in addition to) the income tax. That way wealthy individuals who buy more goods and services will naturally pay more tax but at a rate they have control over. have tax credits for those making under the poverty level and this will also catch all the illegal and unreported income with the sales tax when they purchase goods and services.
Rick,
An interesting idea.
However, I would not put it past some Democrat to then propose a “You are not spending enough money for us to tax and you have too much money in your bank account doing nothing and we cannot tax it” Tax Act.
In a move that many called long overdue, on Thursday God formally notified House Speaker Mike Johnson that he was going to Hell.
In a rare public statement, the Almighty said that Johnson’s support of Donald Trump’s war in Iran was the “last straw” that sealed the Speaker’s eternal damnation.
“What do you do with someone who claims to be a Christian and supports killing civilians?” God asked. “You send his ass to Hell, that’s what.”
Confronted by reporters in a Capitol corridor, Johnson said he was “disappointed” by the Heavenly Father’s decision, but added, “I serve a higher power: Donald Trump.”
Unfortunate taking of the Lord’s Name in vain.
Alla alla akbar…alla alla carte…
So what? Now you’re gonna demand censoring here? Time to grow up and adapt. And F muslims.
The “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act” is music to the ears of young voters and will play very well in the upcoming midterms. Democrats are winding that message up to grinding speed as we speak…..
The fun part about all of this is watching Democrats fail, time and time again and again. The failed state of CA is a prime example of failed Democrat policies that have driven the state into the ground. Just look at all the people (by the U-Haul data), and the companies that have left.
The Babylon Bee would agree with you (and me): https://babylonbee.com/news/iran-cancels-plan-to-attack-california-after-seeing-gavin-newsom-already-destroyed-it
Ellen Evans,
HAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAAHAHHAHAA!!!
Thank you for the laugh!!
Fail? How is moving a fail? Ground? It still exists. You are a fool.
I’m thinking about tax-deferred earnings and accounts.
I am not a billionaire, and I am not a tax attorney. But I certainly can be affected by, (and it certainly is my understanding that), withdrawal from tax-deferred investments (including residential investment) is only taxed upon withdrawal as far as state taxes go (notwithstanding RMDs).
And there are a handful of Republican states that do not have state income tax, including Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, etc….
I suspect many billionaires are billionaires by value of total assets, not taxable income for any particular year.
What am I missing here; do I have this wrong?
(I realize that wealth tax is separate from income tax. I’m just curious as to how the amount of wealth tax can be fairly determined on unrealized assets…. But then, I guess that might be similar to property tax valuation….(?)
A good question is whether, having taxed an unrealized gain, the government would be liable for a refund to the taxpayer if, when realized, the gain is less than the amount it was valued at and taxed on. What happens when an investment previously taxed tanks and produces a loss rather than a gain for the taxpayer?
Precisely, Ellen Evans, and thank you for reading.
Please read my Update, supra, which differs from some of others’ comments here. (when I spoke to tax specialists, I drew an analogy to tangible assets like real estate, e.g., property tax values a property at $800K, and it is taxed and paid accordingly, but actual/true market value/house sells at $500K. –Of course you have the right to object to the tax valuation and ask for an adjustment, and are only taxed on realized capital gain, but what of the excess taxes that you paid?
Actually, as you can see by my “Update,” it appears that the wealth tax is actually premised on taxable income, not asset valuation. Hope I am makingsense
Proposed Tax on Unrealized Gains: A proposal tied to Kamala Harris and others would tax unrealized gains for individuals with net worth over $100 million, applying a minimum 25% effective tax rate on total income—including unrealized gains. This would be paid annually and treated as a prepayment against future capital gains taxes when assets are sold. The answer is yes, a credit is applied.
But ‘treated’ prepayment on the unrealized gain is not optional, n’est ce pas?
(meant to say, “But ‘treated as”
sorry.
Well, they’ll demand a payback as in those pesky tariffs.
The reason the billionaires won’t raise costs? They have dividends to pay!
Your checks are in the mail Bernie, Ro. Hated those tariffs , they cut into my emerging market labor profit. 😂
The same Tariffs Biden used
Guessing gain? Residential investments can be rolled over into another RE investment. 1031 exchange. Tax deferred taxed at withdrawal. That’s why it called tax differed.
Its obvious yo know nothing about the subject. So refrain from blabbing nonsense.
I am familiar with rollovers and 1031 exchanges. They have absolutely nothing to do with my comment(s). Thanks anyway.
Lin,
You totally owned the annony!! Good one!
Hey “Enough is enough” Bernie, “What exactly is your fair share of what someone else has worked for?” — Thomas Sowell
Bonus question: Why won’t that be enough in the next five minutes? (Please be specific)
Because confiscation of the entirety of assets held by billionaires in the U.S. would produce less than is required to fund current federal government expenditures for a year.
Confiscation? Entirely unrealistic scenario. It goes against the entire purpose of the US Constitution. Your point is understood. Once confiscated, what comes next?
“. . . target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed . . .”
That is an application of Marx’s cannibalistic notion: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Would the Left care again to assert that American socialists (Mamdani, Sanders, AOC) are *not* Marxists?
This is VERY SCARY! We the People need to wake up and fast or we won’t have anything left of our beautiful country.
Fabulous, as an employer/owner I’d also thank American labor, Bernie and Ro for reining in those nasty tariffs. Cutting into my profits as a foreign labor employer. Thank you, little people!
😂 Bernie, Ro, Liz, your checks are in the mail! 😂
^^ nasty tariffs cutting into…
😂 the sun is shining. Those guys rely on envy. I know! Increase the minimum wage. It won’t effect inflation.
I wonder how many of those 938 billionaires are members of congress.
Our “betters” tend to exempt themselves from these types of laws. Congress doesn’t feel the pain of the ACA or pesky insider trading laws.
And those examples are just the tip of the iceberg of laws Congress passes and exempts it’s members from following.
Exempt? If they were held to the same standards as the common folk, they would be in jail. So, thats why they are “above the law.”
I am opposed to a wealth tax and I’m not in anyone’s category of wealth. Simply ask random taxpayer what is wealth and it always someone else with a dollar more. Real life Main Street. I would suggest that if a wealth tax is passed, Congress will ALWAYS move the bar. They can NEVER be trusted. Just look at the fraud cases involving government funds and radicals just want to keep digging into that black hole. Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than a steal without merit. I’m just a Jane Doe taxpayer who has always worked for a living just like most Americans without regard to party affiliation.
As illustrated by the history of the income tax, originally marketed as “soaking the rich only.” That lasted a couple of years.
Had the standard exemption at the implementation of the income tax been indexed to inflation, it would be over $95,000 for 2025.
The people they plan on targeting to tax are the very same people who bolster and support these Marxist. Now to avoid the tax they’ll run from the states engaging in redistribution of wealth and like locust invade states like Florida and Texas. That wouldn’t be so bad but they bring their left wing baggage with them, hate Trump, hate DeSantis and once again they’ll support the Marxist only to destroy a red state. Florida and Texas should now impose and entry fee equal to the tax these people are funning from. Why offer safe harbor to those who will only destroy the peace and harmony residents of Florida and Texas now enjoy?
Anonymous, I believe that there are the early leavers who brought their collective philosophy with them. Colorado is an example. The late leavers that have migrated from blue states however are saying enough is enough. These late leavers come saying I didn’t leave the party the part left me.
I used to live in Colorado and we used to express the same sentiments that you express. Be bouyed.
The times they are a changing.
Thinkitthrough: Good for calling out that distinction, and I agree.
but Florida and others have already imposed wealth tax(via Insurers of property)
mortgage of $4k month + insurance $4k month(mandatory)
peasant retirees are leaving
broke after new condo assessments wanted $100k each unit(thanks to FLA legislature)
So here is a prediction. The rich (define it as you will) move out of high tax states due to the extra taxes. Money inflow to states shuts down due to the tax the rich schemes. Politicians blame the rich for evading the tax and then redefine rich to lower incomes. They will also redefine what is taxable.
It is easy to play the economic envy card. People are naturally jealous of those better off and it the rich’s fault that I do not have money. It sounds great that politicians promise “free” handouts to their constituents. Yet, nothing is “free” and someone has to pay for it. The problem is NOBODY wants to pay. So find an easy target. Yet those with money are mobile and will move the money out of harms way. Democrat or Republican rich are exactly the same, they like their money and they do not want to give it up.
This will fail, but it is going to be extremely painful to until it does.