Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the bizarre claim of Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that the Framers would have supported wealth taxes, including the proposed Billionaire’s Tax. It is a claim that seeks to mask the economically unwise with the historically unfounded. The Framers sought to protect property from legislative redistributive impulses. James Madison wrote that the bicameral system, and particularly the Senate, “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” That does not sound like an ally of Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
Here is the column:
Was James Madison the Zohran Mamdani of his time? Gavin Newsom appears to think so. In joining the growing number of Democratic leaders supporting a wealth tax, the California governor claimed that the U.S. Constitution and our Founders were all about wealth distribution: “The system America’s founders built,” he said, “was designed to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands, but we have allowed that concentration to happen anyway, slowly, in plain sight, over decades.”
The only problem with this argument is that it is utterly and demonstrably false. The Madisonian democracy is designed to avoid the concentration of political power, not the concentration of wealth.
The Founders were great believers in capitalism and the free market. In my recent book, “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the economic philosophy of the Founders in exploring the history and future of this unique republic. This isn’t simply the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence but also the anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” which the Founders embraced.
Many of the Founders were themselves quite wealthy, including banker Robert Morris Jr., who was known as the “Financier of the Revolution” and would be a billionaire today.
Our revolution was the first true Enlightenment revolution, heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, who believed in a natural right to property. That right came not from the government, but from God, and “excludes the common right of other Men.”
That Lockean principle was manifest in George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a basis for the Declaration of Independence. It extolled “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
James Madison drafted protections from government seizure of property, including the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires compensation for any property taken by the government.
The Constitution not only protects property, but was later amended to allow for income taxes rather than wealth taxes. Far from supporting a wealth tax, the constitutional system referenced by Mr. Newsom makes a federal wealth tax unconstitutional.
Mr. Newsom’s recent endorsement of a national wealth tax was likely meant to blunt the outrage over his opposition to the resolution to create a state Billionaires’ Tax on the coming November ballot.
California has reportedly lost trillions of dollars in the exodus of billionaires and other wealthy taxpayers fleeing the high taxes and class politics of the state. Mr. Newsom knows that this draining of wealth spells doom for his state, which is already grappling with a massive, growing deficit. He offered a curious argument for opposing the state wealth tax: “You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do.”
The argument suggested that most citizens are effectively a captive population to be culled by California leaders, dupes who are unable to escape a state with a deadly combination of some of the highest taxes and highest living costs in the nation.
Unions and others pushed the Billionaire Tax to avoid budget cuts and fund the state’s runaway expenditures, from pension funds to projects such as the infamous high-speed train to nowhere.
To deal with California’s reverse Gold Rush, drafters made the proposed Billionaire Tax retroactive to claw back money from those who have escaped.
The national Billionaire Tax pushed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) seeks to cut off any escape for the wealthy short of leaving the country. When she ran for president, Ms. Warren warned the wealthy that she was coming for “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.”
Of course, this assumes that the wealthy would be little more than passive prey in a hunt by the Internal Revenue Service. That is precisely what socialists thought in France decades ago, before an exodus from the country that, along with other socialist policies, brought it to near economic ruin. It was later rescinded.
Nevertheless, wealth taxes make for great politics. What is concerning is that, in addition to a wealth tax, Democratic leaders like Ms. Warren are pledging to pack the Supreme Court if they retake power. A packed court with an insistent liberal majority would let the Democrats push through measures that would otherwise be declared unconstitutional, including a wealth tax.
Congress could then gradually lower the level of wealth needed to trigger the tax, opening up the homes and estates of citizens as an untapped reservoir of money for the taking.
“You’re next” could then apply not just to office holders but to property owners in a push to redistribute wealth.
That strategy may well unfold in coming years, but it will be the realization of a Mamdanian, not a Madisonian, system.
Mr. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
“Legal Standing” is a mandatory requirement for a Plaintiff to challenge the constitutionality of any federal law or previous constitutional ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal Standing means harm or injury caused to a plaintiff. On constitutional cases there is “constitutional injury” – not necessarily physical to financial harm but having your individual rights violated.
Case in point: Recently the NRA partnered the ACLU to defend 2nd Amendment rights. New circumstances created new Legal Standing.
In 2026, there seems to overwhelming and ample evidence that U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the past 25 years have created brand new “Legal Standing” for constitutional attorneys.
From Preemption & Prevention grants to Citizens United – there is ample new Legal Standing showing real harm and injury from these rulings. Attorneys need to litigate these cases using new evidence of harm.
Socialist ideas? I read an article this morning in Salon magazine about how wonderful it would be today if Kamala Harris would have been elected. Klick your hells together. The FBI would still be visiting X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to oversee what is allowed to be posted. The Department of Misinformation would be funded and run by just the right people.
David Brooks when discussing the socialists winning elections recently said, should we replace one authoritarian regime with another.
He must have missed the part in the Constitution about the right to free speech. David glorified Joe Biden who was the overseer of the limiting of free speech on social media by the formation of a government department to control what is said.
David Brooks refused to recognize that an authoritarian regime was already being formulated and implemented.
There are two questions concerning his motivation. One is that he is simply protecting his means of making a very comfortable living. The other is that he has really come to believe what he is saying. If it’s the later god help us all.
TiT,
I think it is both.
National tolerance for a wealth tax is expressed in U.S. Code Title 26 Estate and Gift taxes. It is a tax on death or life transfer or wealth. Wealth that has already been income taxed. They are not a tax on the mere existence of wealth. Those statutes are home to a high altitude dogfight over how to measure value at time of taxable event. It is a story of government’s decisions about how much to bite out of what a lifetime of earning can pass to children. Earning already income taxed. We don’t think twice about demanding a limiting principal for stuff that bites speech. The taxing power is not known for limits. It can even support a penalty for not being covered by the Affordable Care Act. There comes a time when we have to ask what happens to the American Dream when the national government does a wealth transfer in the name of tax from haves to perceived have nots? Maybe we need an application of property law from 5th Amendment eminent domain takings. Eminent domain doesn’t just compensate the thing taken. It also demands payment for damage to the remainder not taken. That’s worth remembering. It meets “Fare Share” with “Damage to the Remainder”.
ᴄᴀꜱʜ ᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ ᴊᴏʙ ᴛᴏ ᴇᴀʀɴꜱ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴛʜᴀɴ $700 ᴘᴇʀ ᴅᴀʏ. ɢᴇᴛᴛɪɴɢ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴡᴇᴇᴋʟʏ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴛʜᴀɴ $3500 ᴏʀ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ꜱɪᴍᴘʟʏ ᴅᴏɪɴɢ ᴇᴀꜱʏ ᴡᴏʀᴋ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ. ɴᴏ ꜱᴘᴇᴄɪᴀʟ ꜱᴋɪʟʟꜱ ʀᴇQᴜɪʀᴇᴅ ꜰᴏʀ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴊᴏʙ ᴀɴᴅ ʀᴇɢᴜʟᴀʀ ᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴀʀᴇ ᴊᴜꜱᴛ ᴀᴡᴇꜱᴏᴍᴇ. ᴀʟʟ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ɪꜱ 2 ʜʀꜱ ᴀ ᴅᴀʏ ꜰᴏʀ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴊᴏʙ ᴀɴᴅ ᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴡᴇꜱᴏᴍᴇ. ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ ᴄᴀɴ ɢᴇᴛ ᴛʜɪꜱ ʙʏ ꜰᴏʟʟᴏᴡ
ᴅᴇᴛᴀɪʟꜱ ʜᴇʀᴇ….. https://pr0app2g01.blogspot.com/
https://pr0app2g01.blogspot.com/
No shit, they were all rich.
All Americans today are amongst the top 99% richest humans in the world and also in all of human history and also since our inception.
You sally, you.
We will seize “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” (Warren)
“…the bourgeoisie are concealing in their coffers the riches which they have plundered… We must catch the plunderers and compel them to return the spoils.” (Lenin)
Oops. Did I mix up the countries and the political parties?
Care to assert again the supposed difference between “democratic socialism” and “socialism?” Or that American socialists are *not* calling for a Soviet- style socialism?
It’s all creeping communism. The word-play is just the creeping part.
Democracy=mob rule, Mob rule=take stuff/kill/destroy.
Thank God I live in a Democratic Republic where Individual rights and property are protected by a little thing we like to call “The Law of the Land”. Here, there are no “group rights” only Individual rights, as individuals are equal.
Of course, to keep it free, requires the trust of the citizens to vote for those individual rights and not for the rights to take/kill.
It’s usually widespread human tragedies that allow communism to root but in America’s case it’s the incredible system that rewards all who put forth effort. Creating wealth (and envy) unimaginable throughout human history and has created a society so incredibly entitled with the excess that it has forgotten the astounding amount of human effort it took to get our system to this level of the greatest human comfort and security humanity has ever known.
“It’s all creeping communism”
More like sprinting and leaping communism if the Dems get their way anytime soon.
The American system “was designed to prevent the concentration of *power* in a few hands . . .” (Newsom, emphasis added)
Newsom’s statement has been haunting America for over a century (and not just from the D’s). It banks on a destructive equivocation between political power and economic power.
Political power is the ability of the government to use physical force to compel obedience. It is the power to punish. It is *that* power that worried the Founders. It is the government’s police powers that they sought to limit.
Economic power is the ability to produce and to trade *voluntarily*. It is the ability to offer a reward. Despite some inconsistencies, to that power the Founders declared: Government, hands off!
Quite rich coming from Nancy Pelosi’s nephew but the Reds will lap it up.
Jennifer Newsom and Paul Pelosi each killed their siblings, as Cain killed Abel. Coincidence?
Our federal laws against communism/marxism are still on the books! Why isn’t the entire “democrat” (now, openly, “communist”) party charged under that law?? The evidence of their crimes is out there for everyone to see–many Americans are already suffering under marxism in the “blue” states & are “voting with their legs” & fleeing those cesspools of corruption!
McCarthy was right about everything, they just waited him out.
The Republic was founded to mitigate Democratic/dictatorial progress with liberal license in DEIst (i.e. color supremacist, class occultist, green dreams, etc) cultures. #HateLovesAbortion and other wicked solutions.
Good catch on that Madison quote. “Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” that’s exactly what the Senate was built to do. And it’s worth pointing out, that check got neutered a long time ago. State legislatures used to pick senators, which meant the states themselves had a direct hand in guarding against exactly this kind of majority raid on property. The Seventeenth Amendment took that power away and handed it straight to popular vote. Same body, same name, but the thing it was built to protect against is now just one more vote count away.
That’s the real answer to the limiting principle question too. There isn’t one anymore. A billion today, a hundred million tomorrow, your savings after that. Once the check is gone, the only limit left is whatever the current majority wants.
And let’s be honest about who this actually hits. Nobody should believe this is a tax on all wealthy people. It’s a tax on the unconnected wealthy, the ones without a lobbyist on retainer or a seat at the table when the bill gets written. The wealthy who are already wired into the system, the ones funding the very politicians pushing this thing, will find their carve out or use that same money to get favorable treatment somewhere else. We should expect wealth to try and influence politics, that’s nothing new. But that’s exactly why a tax like this ends up protecting insiders and squeezing everybody else.
So you’re in favor of a wealth tax, just to screw the rich people who own politicians who burden the less wealthy with taxes they should (whatever that means) be paying. Sounds like good ole socialism.
“So you’re in favor of a wealth tax,”
Did /do you get consistent “F-” grades in reading comprehension? That is the opposite of what Olly posted.
Olly has no issue with the summarization, just you. Read it again you perennially stupid commenter.
Exactly Don, thank you.
Don and OLLY,
Thank you for responding and proving the annony to be the moron it truly is.
How marvelous!
OLLY,
Well said.
Also depending on how they would valuate wealth, some people who do not think themselves as “wealthy” could very well find themselves getting taxed for their “wealth.”
I live in a old farm house. I drive a 10 year old F150. We do not look “wealthy” by any stretch of the imagination. But if you were to factor in out buildings, equipment, the livestock etc. we are millionaires by that metric.
Who is “they”? The IRS determines asset valuations. Ever hear of the Internal Revenue Code?
You have a determined habit to shoot your mouth off about subjects you know nothing about.
The IRS does not value assets.
The IRS can only guess what you are worth.
What it KNOWS is your income and if you are a business your expenses.
And even then it knows these all through self reporting.
The company you work for self reports its income and expenses.
and it reports to the irs what it paid you.
Empty words as usual. To state the obvious. You only guess. You guess a lot. So the IRA can only guess? So, in fact you state they know your wealth?
Say, you are a very dull troll with a penchant for filling pages with nonsense and lies.
Didn’t we all just witness in the NY case against Trump how real assets were assessed? The tax collectors office appraises the property at specific milestones, purchase/sales/major improvements etc. It is typically valued lower than what the property is worth on the market with annual increase of 3%. This is what the IRS will use to determine the value. The IRS will also audit your financial records to see what came in versus what went out, that delta should align with your reported income statement.
This is one reason they hate cash and want a digital currency, it’s easier to track.
did the socialist public education fail you in reading comprehension?
Your words are the empty ones as John Say is correct.
Are you trying to get yourself added to the communist’s useful idiots recruitment list?
“Are you trying to get yourself added to the communist’s useful idiots recruitment list?”
That ridiculously retarded buffoon was successfully recruited and brainwashed long ago.
Upstate, that’s the whole ballgame right there. You don’t feel wealthy, but count the outbuildings, the equipment, the livestock and you’re a millionaire on paper. That’s not an accident, that’s the design.
No limiting principle means the definition moves whenever it needs to. Same trick as redistricting. Draw the line wherever nets you what you need this cycle, call it neutral, redraw it next time. Once you let that mechanism through, it doesn’t matter how modest you live. None of it’s protected.
What a stupid comment.
Olly – no, this is simple, DO NOT TAX WEALTH – not EVER, not for any reason, not in any way.
When you tax Wealth you are DIRECTLY destroying the economy.
When you tax income or profits – you REDUCE the rate of growth
When you tax wealth you actually make the economy smaller and reduce standard of living.
John, fair, and you’re pushing this to where it needs to go. My point was the definition’s arbitrary and that’s dangerous on its own. Yours is the harder truth underneath it, even with a clean definition it’s still destructive, because you’re taxing the stock, not the flow.
Income tax slows how fast people build wealth. Wealth tax forces people to liquidate the thing itself just to cover a bill on money they never touched. That’s not slowing growth, that’s shrinking the actual economy year over year.
So no argument here. Not a well designed wealth tax versus a poorly designed one. No wealth tax, period. The definition problem is just the first way it goes wrong. The economics are the deeper reason it shouldn’t exist at all.
The real folly is to take assets from the most productive asset allocators and give them to the worst allocators. Many African governments took farms from successful farmers and redistributed to people who were far less productive with the land. It killed their economies. Venezuela did the same. I’ve created or invested in startups that have created thousands of jobs and billions in payroll. Every dollar the government takes from doesn’t change my lifestyle (yet!) but reduces my ability to create more jobs. There needs to be a balance between compassion and productivity, but politicians (of each party) only want to feed their particular mob. They only represent the people who vote for them, with little thought for the well-being of the whole country.
That’s the piece that gets left out of every wealth tax debate. It’s not just about fairness or who’s got what, it’s about who’s actually good at putting capital to work. Take money from someone who’s proven he can turn it into jobs and payroll and hand it to a government that’s proven it can’t run a cafeteria efficiently, and you haven’t redistributed wealth, you’ve destroyed it. The African land redistribution and Venezuela examples aren’t outliers, that’s the pattern every time.
Productive assets end up in less capable hands and the whole economy shrinks, not just the target’s bank account.
And the point about politicians only feeding their own mob is the real rot underneath all of it. Nobody in power right now is thinking about the whole country’s productive capacity. They’re thinking about the next election and which coalition needs feeding. That’s a citizen capacity problem as much as a policy one. A formed electorate would punish a politician for wrecking the economy to win a news cycle. Right now most don’t even see the connection.
Wealth tax: consider two farms initially exactly the same.
Farmer one doesn’t reinvest in the farm, a necessity to add to growth and prevent deterioration, and loss of value. He spends all his money on whores, drinking, and producing children he doesn’t support.
Farmer two reinvests in the farm, so it becomes more valuable. He spends his money on his hard-working children who tend to the farm, increasing its value while going to college to become engineers.
Enter the wealth tax. Farmer one pays zero, farmer two is charged a lot of taxes, which means his kids no longer go to college, or the farm produces less.
Did the second farmer make a mistake? Of course not, but according to those supporting a wealth tax, he did.
UF – there are many ways to tax. All are harmful. But they are not equally harmful.
By far the worst form of taxation is “wealth taxes” – nothing is more damaging.
Further it is NOT that it might target people who are not all that wealthy that is its core problem
But that taxing the ACTUAL uber wealthy is the stupiest thing you can do.
Adam Smith noted 250 years ago that as your wealth increases the rise in your standard of living slows.
Smith put it that there are only so many opulent carraiges a person can use..
In todays terms there are only so many opulent homes or Gulf Stream V jets you can use.
What this inherently means is the the greater your wealth the more your wealth and your efforts are going towards benefiting OTHERS
Elizabeth Warrent is desparate top get Government to take a Cut of Elon Musks Trillion dollars in Wealth.
But the reality is that 99.99% of that Trillion dollars is already benefiting the rest of us – Musk’s wealth provides massive numbers of jobs – it provides electric cars, and satelite internet services and solar panels and ….
If you tax Musks wealth you get LESS of the benefits to all of us that Musk’s wealth brings.
Warrent and left wing nuts pretend that private wealth is passively doing nothing – that it just sitts on a shelf gathering dust when it could be being used by left wing nuts for the bnenefit of all. But it is NOT sitting on a shelf gathering dust – it is actively invested in creating things that WE WANT – and you KNOW that WE WANT those things because we buy tham and make the uber rich even richer.
The rising wealth of Musk and Bezos and … is a VERY GOOD thing – they are getting incredibly wealthy – because they are very very good at taking the money we give tham and giving us things we really badly want in return -0 and the more we give them – the more wonderful things we want they give us.
Tax wealth and that slows or stops. Musk and Bezos are not the losers – Government could confiscate 99% of the wealth of billionaires – and it would have no effect on THEM. But it would be disasterous for US.
JS, does Warren mean to force everyone onto a soc sec income and restricted to that alone as a pension? What has been saved in the KC baking powder can for anything additional?
Rembrandt is an industry employing makers, buyers, educational departments, authors, philanthropists, museums and donors, and yachts? She must be for the roaming limners?
A tent, a garden and children to feed the elderly? Lovely picture…
It gleans votes from her target class, nothing more.
John Say, it’s unfortunate that the economically illiterate are pushing for these wealth taxes. Entrepreneurial efforts involve both risk and reward. Successful entrepreneurs have created jobs since the inception of the country. Those individuals who are on the government payroll either don’t understand that or don’t want to acknowledge that.
“. . . some people who do not think themselves as “wealthy” could very well find themselves getting taxed for their “wealth.””
Yep. As with all redistribution schemes, it’s only a matter of time. As the welfare programs proliferate, the need to loot grows.
When the income tax was imposed in 1913, it targeted only the rich, and was imposed on less than 1% of Americans. Then over the subsequent decades, the welfare state grew, and grew, and bloated. And look at that confiscatory income tax today, and who it loots.
Congress doesn’t have to take specific action to lower the threshold of a wealth tax over time. Inflation does it, and of course other Congressional actions contribute to that.. When the Obamacare NIIT surtax was initiated in 2013, it was expected that only the top 3.1 million taxpayers would owe tax. By 2021, 7.3 million taxpayers were paying it, with no change to the income threshold, which is not indexed to inflation like regular tax brackets are.
Upstate Farmer, you are absolutely correct in you are wealthy by that metric. The people screaming for the wealth tax do not realize what it takes for people to provide. Your tractor, cattle, out buildings, my tools and truck. These are all part of the wealth they want to confiscate.
I watch “Clarkson’s Farm” on Amazon prime for the educational and learning experience https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0H1F6SPGZ/ref=atv_dp_season_select_s5 . This last season in the last few episodes they are discussing what the UK government wants to do to farmers. A wealth tax on land, equipment and livestock. They do not realize that they will bankrupt the people that provide the food that they eat in London.
Seems familiar to the city socialists.
“I live in a old farm house. I drive a 10 year old F150. We do not look “wealthy” by any stretch of the imagination.”
Thank you for allowing me to show what happens with the wealth tax I discussed earlier; this time, not a billionaire.
If you trade in that old F150 for an expensive Mercedes, selling a few milking cows, the Mercedes depreciates, and the amount of milk produced decreases, along with your yearly profits.
Pretty much every state has a wealth tax. What else would you call property tax?
Subjectivity plys into valuations. Taxed on unrealized gains. Taxed in spite of the asset not generating returns. E-V-I-L
Estate tax. Anyone ever hear of that? Can’t take it with you. Right? Heirs? Who cares about them, they can work and accumulate wealth.
Tax unrealized gains = Pay up front, deduct any losses after sale. Tax any gains after sale. Deduct gain/losses on ordinary and investment income. So where’s the problem.
Don’t forget loss carry forwards.
It is unclear what you are saying, but
All taxes are destructive – they all reduce our standard of living.
The WORST taxes are taxes on wealth.
The lease damaging taxes are sales taxes.
Worse still
Wealth taxes are the easiest to impose – it is always OTHERS who app=ear to have to pay wealth taxes,
And politicians and people fail to realize that wealth is just another name for the invested capital that makes our standard of living possible.
Conversely sales taxes are the most self regulating – everyone pays sales taxes – therefore everyone has a voice in keeping them limited.
Sales taxes reduce the ability of Government to do stupid things – because all of us KNOW we are paying for it.
“What else would you call property tax?”
A huge mistake.
John, if you want, accepting that property taxes are bad, can you tell us what you think about Florida’s method of lowering property taxes? It raises the homestead deduction. I think this is a compromise since DeSantis wanted to eliminate all homestead property taxes.
I doubt anyone here has any wealth of consequence. So why the all the whining? What do you care if millionaires or billionaires are taxed?
I’m not a jew or a gypsy or gay. Why would I care that the Nazis treated them poorly?
“I doubt anyone here has any wealth of consequence “, here it is folks, the brain behind the sickness.
I’d bet a million that you have a negative net worth.
It’s all about me.
There are nearly 24 million adults in the U.S. with a net worth of $1 million or more. This represents roughly 7% of the total population, or about 1 in every 14 American adults.
Your point?
His point is that you would lose a million that you obviously don’t have.
He wrote 24 million adult millionaires. But since there is no wealth tax, no one is being taxed, nor could anyone know what their balance sheets are.
Also, according to him, children do not have any wealth. Go figure that out yourself.
The point was to rebut the assertion that “I doubt that anyone here has any wealth of consequence…”.
Actually, I think your number might be on the low side. There are a lot of people in say Ca. that have owned their homes for a long time. If they were smart, they did not increase their mortgage or only slightly. Thus their property values would put them in the millionaire category. Then there are the people that were smart and got out and were able to pay cash for their new home and invest in other property or the financial markets.
IMHO there are a lot of socialists that do not think their property would count towards the tax the rich. I know my old neighbor is sitting in a house worth over $1.6 m. net and has a market stake but would believe they would never be included.
As has been said before, useful idiots.
It is life experiences and actions that bring relative thoughts and comments to forums like this. Some of our young that ave never experienced the reality of working for a living, will never realize that the pandering of politicians is only to enrich their own little circle of elites.
On a separate note to taxing the rich, I was pleased to read that the Dell family is adding or continuing to add to the fund for newborns. I wish more people in his wealth categoryor fr that matter anyone do something similar. It truly helps the people directly.
Sorry to hijack with such a long reply
You summarized the delusion of socialism. Would be fun to watch the reactions once the Wealth Tax bills get sent out to Socialists.
“There are nearly 24 million adults in the U.S. with a net worth of $1 million or more. This represents roughly 7% of the total population, or about 1 in every 14 American adults.”
Yep. And it is worthy of note that Ro Khanna, who sadly appears to be the next governor of Califackallyall, has, in a very short period of time, gone from advocating imposing a wealth tax on those with $1,000,000,000 to imposing it on those who are worth at least $50,000,000. For the innumerate leftists who infect this blog, that is a 20-fold decrease in worth subject to the tax. One more decrease of that magnitude would impose the tax on those with a net worth of $2.5 million, and that group is quite large. I guarantee you that nobody with $2.5MM net worth who is paying CA living expenses considers him or herself wealthy. I also guarantee you that will come to pass, because the unprincipled idiots proposing wealth taxes will never reduce their profligate spending, in fact, they will likely increase it, because they regard the wealth tax (and those who have managed to accumulate a bot of capital as a result of prudence and hard work) as a bottomless source of untapped revenue. NTM that they will undoubtedly find some way to exempt their favorites among the wealthy from such a tax, exacerbating the crisis they are about to create.
Because another name for Other peoples wealth is the invested capital that is responsible for delivering to me my wonderful standard of living.
Tax wealth and you get less capital invested – you actually shrink the economy.
There is no stupider form of taxation.
And while YOU do not think you are paying – it is YOU that will pay and quite quickly.
John Say,
Well said.
Feed seed corn to swine, olé!
I care because I care about what is right and what is wrong. I care because every dollar taken from citizens and transferred to govt makes the state more powerful and the citizen less powerful.
AI generated: Why should their be a wealth tax?
Answer: Proponents argue for a wealth tax primarily to reduce extreme wealth inequality and raise significant government revenue. With the top 0.1% of Americans holding nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%, advocates contend that taxing net worth rather than just income is necessary to address disparities in economic status and political power.
Key arguments include:
Equity and Fairness: A wealth tax ensures that those with the greatest ability to pay contribute more, addressing the fact that high-net-worth individuals can often avoid income taxes through unrealized capital gains and strategies like “buy, borrow, die.”
Revenue Generation: An annual tax on net worth above a high threshold (e.g., $50–100 million) could generate trillions of dollars over a decade, helping to pay down the national deficit or fund social programs without burdening middle- or lower-income families.
Economic Efficiency: By taxing idle or low-yielding assets, a wealth tax may incentivize the productive use of capital, shifting investments from non-income-generating holdings (like luxury real estate) to income-yielding assets that drive economic growth.
Addressing Racial Disparities: Because wealth gaps in the U.S. are significantly larger than income gaps and are perpetuated by inheritance, a wealth tax could help interrupt cycles of inherited privilege and reduce long-term racial wealth disparities.
Thinking… everyone here can see something in that of interest.
Economic Efficiency sounds like fun.
Revenue generation is also of interest.
Now do “Why is a wealth tax a bad idea?”
You asked, you answer.
I don’t know which AI engine you used. To get a fair comparison you really ought to get both answers from the same source.
Which AI? Makes no difference. Do multiple. Why don’t you do it. You’re the one who wants an answer. Call it a learning experience.
Frankly it was mostly a rhetorical question, but also a bit of a test to see if you were willing to present a balanced analysis of the topic. The answer to that question at least is now clear.
Rhetorical? Test? So you already know the answer. Then post it. Actually, we both know you have no answers. I think you’re just a clueless troll.
You asked for it, so here is some flip side AI Q&A in response to Bullion’s original AI response to “Why should their be a wealth tax?” You should be able to trust these AI answers as much as you do Bullions AI answers.
I asked google in AI mode (free) a series of questions about a US wealth tax. I don’t want to post a HUGE wall of text here, so I’ll list of the questions here so anyone can try them themselves. Note though that AI seldom answer questions exactly the same way twice.
I’ll only post the full answer to my 4th/last question, since it seemed the most enlightening to me – though I’m sure that many here will disagree.
https://gemini.google.com/app (turn on temporary chat mode so that no past conversations effect the answers)
Q1: present the arguments for and against a US wealth tax
Q2: historically, what are the chances that the target shifts to a lower income once the tax on the 0.1% is saturated?
Q3: assess the impact on individual entrepeneurship after incorporating the likely shift in tax targets to those at lower income levels
Q4: assess the societal impact if the tax target expands to lower income levels as you say is highly likely?
Answer to Q4: (a MEDIUM? wall of text)
When a wealth tax expands downward to target the middle and upper-middle classes, the societal impact shifts from wealth redistribution to structural wealth stagnation.
1. The Erosion of Middle-Class Wealth Mobility
The most immediate societal impact is the creation of a permanent wealth ceiling for everyday families.
– The Intergenerational Trap: Families use housing equity and modest investment portfolios to lift the next generation into higher economic tiers. A downward-expanded tax continually chips away at these assets, making it incredibly difficult for middle-class families to build multi-generational security.
– The Death of Self-Reliance: As the state taxes personal savings at lower income levels, citizens become entirely dependent on government programs (like state pensions and public healthcare) because private wealth accumulation is penalized.
2. A Cultural Shift Toward “Defensive Spending”
When saving and investing assets triggers a tax penalty, society’s psychological relationship with money fundamentally changes.
– Hyper-Consumption: Individuals choose to spend money immediately on depreciating luxury goods, expensive vacations, and experiences rather than saving it. If the state penalizes you for holding capital, society shifts toward a culture of immediate gratification.
– Underground Assets: Citizens begin hoarding wealth in untraceable, non-productive assets like physical cash, jewelry, and collectibles to hide them from asset audits. This strips capital out of the productive banking system.
3. Severe Institutional Distrust and Polarization
Expanding an asset-based tax downward destroys the social contract and fosters deep resentment toward the government.
– Intrusive State Surveillance: To enforce an income tax, the government only needs to know what you earned. To enforce a broad wealth tax, the state must annually audit what you own—including the value of your home, cars, retirement accounts, and personal belongings. This leads to a pervasive sense of government overreach.
– Class Warfare in the Middle Class: Instead of unity, society fractures as regular citizens accuse their neighbors of hiding assets. Political polarization intensifies as the defining political battle shifts from “taxing the billionaires” to “protecting my home and savings from the government.”
4. Urban Decay and Depressed Housing Markets
For the upper-middle class, the vast majority of net worth is tied up in primary residences.
– The Forced Downsizing Crisis: Retiring couples or long-term homeowners who bought property decades ago may find themselves “wealthy” on paper due to rising real estate values, despite having fixed incomes. A lower-threshold wealth tax forces these everyday citizens to sell their family homes just to pay the annual tax.
– Stagnant Property Values: As people actively avoid owning high-value real estate to stay beneath the tax threshold, the housing market stalls, leading to a decline in local property tax revenues that fund public schools and community infrastructure.
Summary of the Societal Metamorphosis
– From Meritocracy to Compliance: Success becomes defined by how well you navigate tax exemptions, rather than how much value you create for society.
– From Accumulation to Consumption: Society stops investing in the future and focuses strictly on consuming in the present.
– From Trust to Paranoia: The relationship between the citizen and the state turns highly adversarial due to invasive annual property evaluations.
Thnere is no balanced analysis.
Wealth Tax BAD – PERIOD.
If transfering wealth to govenrment was a good thing – socialism would actually work.
We could eliminate amrkets and prices and private property entyirely and just have govenrment own everything and decide what is best.
People have wealth because they have made wise decisions with wealth that have benefited everyone – that it true even of inherited and passive wealth, but it is more true of those who created the wealth they have.
Absent govenrment people will keep wealth – regardless of how they acquired it, by investing it in ways that benefit us.
If those investments do not benefit us – their wealth will literally diminish. If their choices benefit us – their wealth will increase.
Government has NEVER been able to invest wealth as well as those who already have it – atleast in part because very little of what government does is “invest”
Moving wealth from private individuals to govenrment changes nearly all of it from investment to expenses.
It trades a long term benefit for immediate gratification and that always runs out.
@Anotnous
Or here’s a thought: don’t use the regurgitation machine known as AI at all, or treat it with same skepticism reserved for Wikipedia et. al. And do your own research.
I am gobsmacked by how few people seem to understand what advanced algorithms actually do or how they actually work. You just basically posted a glorified Google summary; no thinking transpired, just, ‘search the available data, attempt to contextualize, and relay in natural language’ actions being executed.
This is even less magical and a fresh coat of paint on long-existing technologies than previous tech wind storms.
For those that care, in the 60’s when this was all conceived, the suggested name was ‘advanced data processing’ because that is precisely and all it’s doing. If the database has corruptions or inaccuracies, so does everything else iit does. It doesn’t hallucinate, that’s a cutesy millennial word – it malfunctions or not because it is software.
Regardless, it can’t stop being software executing mathematical instructions. Ever. Quantum (which currently does not exist, despite the hype) would just make all that faster. The speed might geant the illusion of something more organic, but it isn’t. 🤷🏽♂️
Some things lend themselves well to automation; thinking is not one of them.
James,
Great comment!
I generally just skip over most things AI as I do most things Wiki.
Funny part is how some just post AI content and smugly think they are smarter for it, when most of the time, they do not even bother to read what the AI returned.
You do not need AI to answer this question.
A wealth tax is literally the destruction of the economy.
Taxing wealth shrinks the economy – it results in less production.
An income tax shrinks Growth. That is bad, but it the economy does not grow there is no income to tax
If the economy shrinks – there is STILL more wealth to tax until you have destroyed everything.
A wealth tax is the absolutely stupidest thing a government can do.
Adam Smith demonstrated that even a wealthy miser who kept Gold under his bed – benefited everyone else more than Government.
Bullion-Depends on the AI. The AI is only an amalgamation of what has been fed into it. It’s very smart but they only get what is selected and read into them. That’s why they tend to give very different answers depending on who has developed the AI.
Trash in and then you get Trash out. The present AI’s have been developed by many left leaning organizations and when you evaluate the input there is virtually no countervailing input from a right point of view.
Many of your “theories on a wealth tax are just that, Theories”.
Also people generate wealth, AI’s are an aid.
There are already reports of medical AI’s that attempt to fake a reading of an MRI or CT or even CXR’s without actual “seeing” the image. That’s why they continue to be overhead by imperfect humans. Using an AI to back insanity or stupidity is till backing insanity or stupidity.
No it does not depend on the AI.
GEB,
I get AI can be used as a tool in some cases, but in others, as you put, trash in, trash out.
Yes!
BZZT wrong
There are absolutely NO POSITIVE BENEFITS of a wealth tax.
Everything listed – presumes that Government spends money better than people do themselves – if that is so – then socialism would have worked.
You can relabel wealth taxes as something other than socialism – but weatlh taxes fail for the same reason that socialism fails – because people managing their own money benefit EVERYONE more than government.
If you want a wealth tax – then why not go all out – eliminate all private ownership of everything – let the government decide.
Let it decide what businesses to create what factories to build – who gets what home to live in, what car to drive.
If government is actually good at making choices with money – then lets have govenrment make all such choices.
The fact is that those with wealth are with incredibly rare exceptions those who are best able to use wealth to the benefit of all.
While government – with few exceptions is actually the WORST able to decides how to use wealth to the benefit of all.
AI envy.
“AI generated: Why should their be a wealth tax?”
AI can process data faster than humans, but it requires a human to accurately feed it the questions along with instructions, because AI will use data it shouldn’t use, such as advertisements and MSM, which is opinion and unchecked data.
Why should there not be a wealth tax: (my human answer)
Growth depends on investment. Aside from what the billionaire spends on himself, which is already taxed, the funds from the billionaire tax disappear, and most of it is not reinvested. That leads to a declining economy, which hurts the middle class more than the rich.
Before any of you start yapping stupidly about a wealth tax, first, know what it is, then discuss.
Norway, Spain, and Switzerland are the only European countries with a net wealth tax, though France and Italy levy taxes on specific assets (real estate and foreign assets, respectively).
Globally, other nations with active wealth taxes include Colombia (1.5% until 2026), Argentina (0.25%–1.5%), Bolivia (2.4%), Ecuador (0.15%), Algeria (1%), and Suriname (38% rate classification).
European Implementation
Norway: Imposes a general wealth tax on residents with progressive rates.
Spain: Applies a general wealth tax on net wealth above regional thresholds (0.2%–3.5%).
Switzerland: Levies a cantonal wealth tax on net assets (0.1%–1%).
France: Uses the Impôt sur la fortune immobilière (IFI), taxing only real estate assets over €1.3 million.
Italy: Taxes real estate owned outside Italy (1.06%) and foreign investments (0.2%).
Belgium: Imposes an annual tax on securities accounts exceeding €1 million.
Netherlands: Uses a “Box 3” tax on assumed returns from wealth.
It is telling that all of the countries with a wealth tax are not exactly world powers. Why? Because government is inept at spending other people’s money.
Now that’s a stupid insight. Obviously that indicates you’re not someone who should worry about a wealth tax.
Everyone should worry about a wealth tax – the worst losers are those clamoring for it the most.
But they all have higher GDP per person than the USA.
And the Europeans have 6 weeks vacation and health insurance. That’s worth taxing a few rich slobs for.
Whether you are american or European you are actually paid for what you produce.
Taxing other people will not make you more productive and it will not get you more benefits.
Many european countries do have more vacation – and they have lower standards of living.
You can do that right now yourself – take an extra 2 or 4 weeks of unpaid vacation – you will STILL have a higher standard of living than nearly all europeans and the same amount of vacation.
Further I am sure your employer will agree to give you 6 weeks of paid vacation if you will agree to a 10% overall cut in pay.
Again you will have the paid vacation of the Europeans and still a higher standard of living.
health insurance in the US is provided a variety of different ways – but regardless, NO ONE in the US is without healthcare.
That is no different from europe. All you are ranting about is how that healthcare coverage is paid for.
In most of Europe – health insurance is private but mandiditory – either your employer pays – or YOU pay.
In some countries – your health insurance is paid by government (except for copays) but healthcare providers are private.
Only the UK has a purely government provided healthcare system – and that is failing – most people in the UK now have private supplemental private health insurance and there is a rising number of private doctors clinics and hospitals.
Overall Americans pay about 34% of their income through their lifetime on total taxes – federal state and local.
Europeans pay 50%
Americans have significantly higher incomes and lower taxes and as a result nearly double the spendable income.
We have much larger homes, more cars, larger apartments
Regardless if you find Europe so attractive – Denmarks is actively seeking people in the STEM and Tech fields,
if you are an engineer or tech working you can immigrate to Denmark and they will exempt you from taxes for 3 years.
If 6 weeks vacation and a less complicated but not actually cheaper or better healthcare system appeals to you
The Danes would be happy to have you.
No they do not.
Norway, Spain, and Switzerland
Switzerland and Norway have slightly higher per person than the US – though manyh US states have far higher gdp/person than either.
Spain does not even have half the GDP per person the US does.
Norway has a population of 5.6m. switzerland has a population of 9.5.
I would further note that norway is about 98% White – and whites in the US have a higher standard of living than norwegians.
Switzerland is not only nearly all white – it is 96% European – and again the standard of living of white in the US is as high as Switzerland.
Switzerland prides its self in being the most diverse country in Europe – 40% of the population are immigrants – FROM OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
When looking at US data such as standard of living one must remember that:
The US has 350M people – the total first generation immigrant population is 52M, of those 13M are legal permanent residents.
A significant portion of the remainder are legal temporary residents, and the rest are illegal aliens.
Of the Legal Permanent residents – 2/3ds are eligible for citizenship.
The 2nd generation US immigrant population is larger than the first generation. meaning slightly less than 1/3 of people in this country are first or 2nd generation immigrants. Unlike Switzerland or any of Europe – these immigrants are NOT from other European countries – they are almost entirely not white.
The US is 65% white – Europe is about 96% European whites.
With few notable exceptions immigrants everywhere – but particularly in the US bring down national averages.
The US is BY FAR the most diverse country in the world.
Isn’t there a globalization discouragement aspect to it? Reinvest here, locally.
That is true – but it is worse than that.
The FIRST problem is that those who have wealth are far far far better able to spend it fort the benefit of all than government.
But the next problem is that private wealth is 100% invested. That means it is being used all the time to raise our standard of living.
Invested wealth is NOT used to meet our needs, it is used to increase our ability to meet our needs.
It is the difference between money used to buy a home and money used to rent an apartment.
It is the difference between teaching a man to fish and feeding him a fish.
While both are good – only one has benefits going beyond the moment.
Nearly all govenrment spending is badly providing for our immediate needs.
So you are transfering money from growing our ability to meet future needs to meeting the needs ofg the moment
You are selling the future in return for the present.
None of this changes the FACT that wealth taxes are by far the most destructive form of tax their is.
You can tax profits at 100% and not shrink the standard of living.
While any wealth tax makes all of us poorer.
Preaching in favor of a Wealth Tax is nothing other than preaching in favor of dividing We the People against We the People. It’s got nothing to do with wealth.
What nonsense. Simply put, its a revenue source. Nothing more. Numerous countries use it and still none has experienced a civil war.
Hmmmm I seem to recall this thing called the Spanish CIVIL War, circa 1930’s. Republicans versus the Nationalists.. They are still fighting.
Ummmm…. I do recall it wasn’t about a wealth tax. Do try and focus.
I forgot your ability for logical thought and reasoning is very short term and truncated. Perhaps it is you that should try to expand your focus.
Ummmm, it was about the greatest potential “wealth tax” of all. What ever became of all that pesky gold bullion that used to be in the Spanish treasury? Read a book, or have someone read one to you.
No but the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions might as well have been – both destroyed the top half of society, while making life WORSE for everyone else.
While Europe did not have a true communist revolution – it did embrace socialism lite for a while. Many nations driving out their wealthy or destroying them,
with the result of pi$$ poor growth and a lower standard of living.
If you actually think these things are a good idea – GO TO EUROPE – unless your degree is in advanced underwater basket weaving or theater or gender studies they will be glad to have you – provided you are white and productive – tech immigrants get their taxes waived for 3 years in Denmark.
So please – if you want a europpean system – Go get the real thing – quit trying to break a system that has worked far better here.
Sales taxes are a revenue source – a far better one. They are a source that drives everyone to take an interest in what is actually being done with tax dollars.
Wealth taxes are the opposite – they are the worst possible source of income – they pit the haves against the have nots, and the young against the old.
They are incredibly economically destrictive, and they generate the least public pressure to spend govenrment funds wisely.
Simply put all revenue sources are NOT equal and wealth taxes are the worst.
They already tax virtually everything. If you own something they tax it (property tax). If you work, they tax it (income). They tax the gas you put in your car to get to work so they can tax the income you earn. They tax everything you buy (sales tax). If you buy certain things the nannies don’t like (pot, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.), they hit you with additional taxes. They tax the water you drink. The telephones you use.
That they want to confiscate even more is a tacit admission all of their redistribution schemes of the past century have been catastrophic failures. The fake “War on Poverty” was supposed to end poverty. Now there are almost 50 million people on the dole taking what used to be called “food stamps”.
It never ends. They demand more schemes because the old schemes are failures.
Slavery
We are nothing but a work animal for the benefit of others.
My advice for those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes, ’cause I’m the taxman
SBB
in addition to fomenting class warfare – it is also incredibly economically destructive.
Nothing is capable of destroying standard of living faster than a wealth tax.
“of dividing We the People against We the People.”
The envious anonymi want to steal the hard work and earnings of others. That turns out to be too hard, so they promote a wealth tax.
A wealth tax will create an entirely new industry of corruption possibilities. We count just some of the ways.
A. The valuation problem. How to do it is fraught with endless problems.
B. Creation of a new valuation industry. When assessing what is vague, corruption is certain.
C. Endless litigation. The DOJ/IRS will find itself in court constantly.
D. Corruption among tax officials.
E. Growth of the concealment industry. The wealthy and even not so wealthy will put this in overdrive.
F. Flight of income. Tax havens and islands will prosper and become the bankers of the world.
G. Reduced investment. An overall decline in the stock exchanges. The end of 401K savings.
H. Taxation without liquidity.
I. The expense of evaluation and administration of a special branch of the IRS – to be called “corruption central.”
J. Annual instability and political pressure.
K. Privacy of assets will be lost.
L. Reduction of entrepreneurship
Even a packed and corrupted Supreme Court would be challenged by these.
@gdobaldallen
That is the insanity of it all and goes without saying fir most of us (but thanks for saying it) – including those pushing these idiotic communist referendums – it would have a destructive trickle down effect destroying, well, pretty much everything, and quickly.
The elite would be perfectly happy ruling over ashes they do not live in; the useful idiots helping them achieve it would be stunned their shiny utopia turned out to be a burned out barn on salted earth. The ignorance of the young electorate is as breathtaking as the insidious greed and lust for power of its masters.
It is madness that we are going down this road again. I hope everyone sang to the skies in its opposition yesterday and we do the same in November.
*gdonaldallen
Typo, sorry
James,
The true believers would sit in their squalor, telling each other how great things are while their state ran grocery stores are mostly empty.
Meanwhile, the Newsomes and Mamdani’s of the country keep telling their dupes,
“It will be different this time! We are doing it!”
What could go wrong.
“The true believers would sit in their squalor, telling each other how great things are while their state ran grocery stores are mostly empty.”
Happening in Cuba right now.
UF – this is not about beleif.
it is about math.
There is this ignorance that wealth just sits their doing nothing – Adam smith demonstrated that even that is beneficial to the rest of us,
but that is not what it does.
Wealth has another name – invested capital.
Musks wealht as an example is in Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter. Tax Musks wealth – and that takes capital from those companies.
Apple is smaller Amazon is smaller, Disney is smaller, ….
That means they do less – they produce less – because demand does not drop – you much pay more for less – and fewer people get what is produced.
A wealth tax is the most direct tax of the ewconomy that there is. All taxes are bad – it is the worst.
Wealth taxes are not trickle down destruction – they are just flat out destruction.
Lets say you passed a 2% wealth tax in the US – CONSERVATIVELY – Economic growth would drop to ZERO – probably much less.
That will impact Everyone.
US Wealth has a different name – it is called capital – and it is invested capital that is the driving force of the economy.
Reduce that and you reduce growth.
Define wealth tax. You can’t.
As of this day, no state gov. has implemented a “wealth tax”. But the federal gov. has. So why all the squawking?
I don’t care whether it’s at the State level or at the Federal level. A wealth tax is wrong, a Death Tax is a wealth tax that takes a family’s money away from generations of their families hard work. Farmers are especially vulnerable to this as their agricultural land becomes assessed for development and is now worth millions. The rate is 55%, a trust can protect but it must be established 3 years prior to death.
It’s theft.
We are sympathetic to farmers and others where it is clear that the beneficiaries of an estate actually helped to produce the value in that estate.
But even in the most egregious cases – a Wealth Tax is economically destructive – even if that wealth is massive and in the hands of a hateful evil despot that did nothing to earn it. Short of gathering it into a pile on the floor of a cave and sitting on it like Smaug the dragon – anything done with that wealth benefits the rest of us.
Musks wealth is also the cvapital that makes SpaceX and Twitter and Tesla exist.
The wealth of other uber rich makes Disney and Amazon and Apple and Microsoft and Exon exist.
“Define wealth tax.”
Define “define.”
It’s the other people’s money… dey finds. 🤣
“Define wealth tax. You can’t.”
Tax on wealth.
You can impliment or limit that many ways – but it is still a tax on some or all wealth.
Property taxes are a tax on wealth. Currently all states have a property tax.
Estate taxes are a special form of a tax on wealth. Most states and the federal govenrment have estate taxes – but they are deliberately constructed to be avoidable – because they re a bad idea.
“as of this day, no state gov. has implemented a “wealth tax”.”
Bzzt wrong – EVERY state has some form of property tax – that is one type of wealth tax
” But the federal gov. has. ”
There is no federal property tax, and no regular federal wealth tax – but there is a federal estate tax with a very large exemption.
“So why all the squawking?”
What we have to wait until after left wing nuts have destroyed the economy to complain ?>
gdonaldallen,
There would be sudden “Omar” like accounting errors where people with $30m of wealth suddenly have only a few thousands to their name.
Sudden Omar? No there would be not.
Do try and learn what the reporting requirements and is process for congress members is before making such baseless accusations. And please, stay off rightist propaganda sites.
The reporting requirements for congress are whatever congress chooses to make them.
Further the ONLY enforcement mechanism is that Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member.
It is not constitutional to require congressmembers to do anything – the only requirements you can impose on a member of congress are the explicit ones in the constitution – and there are few. failure to comply with whatever rules congress makes for members has little or no consequences – unless congress chooses to expell the member.
Omar going to jail in Somalia
Wealth tax, make it look like you are robbing the rich as you rob the working class.
Look like? You have wrong, take from the rich, reduce taxes on the poor. Sound reasonable?
I doubt you have anything worth taxing any way.
Robin Hood is a fantasy. A fairy tale.
Wealth has another name – capital – capital is invested wealth – nearly all wealth today is invested.
When you tax the wealthy – you are effectively reducing every single business in the US – from spacex to the local grocery.
Most everyone knows that Musk is a trionaire because of his share of SpaceX – if you want 2% of Musks wealth it is going to have to be removed from SpaceX
Maybe you do not care about SpaceX – but you are also taking that capital out of Disney and amazon and Walmart and apple and everywhere.
If they have less capital – they can do less – which means the economy actually shrinks.
Fewer jobs – less produced, higher prices.
Come On Man!!! Newscum also asserts Billionaires want to become Millionaires after being stripped (oops, I mean pay their fair share) to the State in taxes so his Bureaucracy can spend it wisely on public projects and pet programs – viva free healthcare, housing, food, transportation, Visa gift cards for NEWCOMERS and free sex transitions for any and all comers!!! It is the Orthodoxy in Californication to be the land of nuttiness so path is blazed for any fringe element in the WORLD!!! Gotta love a S-Hole with great weather!!! Bah haha.
“Wealth tax” cannot exist in English. “wealth”(noun) defining “tax”(noun). The term does not exist in English. Our syntactical dilemma.
Our challenge is to define real English.
The same with ‘unrealized capital gains’. There can be no gain or loss until you sell.
Notice Elon Musk was only a reported trillionaire for a few days. Imagine if he had been taxed in those few days. He would have had to sell parts of his business leaving people unemployed and suppliers losing contracts and money harming local economies for fake wealth he never truly owned.
Whats the point of a hypothetical? Stupid minds rely on hypotheticals because they can’t come to terms with reality.
Isn’t it funny they want to tax you on unrealized gains yet never credit you on unrealized losses?!
How delusional, create a business, borrow from the government as a S Corporation building solar panels and then run it dry while taking a fat paycheck. It bankrupts and as a corporation you walk away under bankruptcy laws. Tax that🤣