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.”
*. Isn’t it true billionaires and a trillionaire, and billionaire investment organization choose to domicile in the US? They aren’t confined by brick and mortar. As the social move grows they’ll relocate making another nation the richest nation in the world. It’s these people that make or made the US dollar and English the business language worldwide.
As SCOTUS has affirmed, the US is a location. Legal or illegal has no weight. ☺
The U.S. has a very strong system of business law. Any other location US billionaires moved their operations to (to avoid taxation) will bring a whole host of other problems. For example, bribery. At least in our country, bribery (also known as lobbying) is not mandatory. In many countries, the wealthy are shaken down for bribes by govt. officials.
Then, there are hostile lawsuits, and takeover attempts. In Russia, private ownership of businesses is a mirage, since anyone more powerful in the “vertical of power” can threaten you into selling your business for pennies on the dollar. We have so many billionaires in the US because of our system of business law.
Yes, our system of biz law is not portable to another country.
Newsom and others of his ilk understand that they are courting the village idiots. How else would they have ever been raised to high office? How else would he have ever been able to prevail in arecall vote .Do not send to know who was elected. Rather send to know who voted. They have yet to be diagnosed as negative for stupid Therein in lies the rub.
Absolutely shocking!
Who would guess 18th Century aristocrats that owned other human beings would oppose taxing themselves?
It would be like an 18th Century Jeffrey Epstein opposing taxes on himself.
One distinction, some (not all) of the Founding Fathers could have sex with teenage slave girls in their own states. In the 1700’s they didn’t need to purchase an island to do what Epstein did.
That is a shocking revelation!
JFK, Monster
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
“Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”
Associated Press
Wed 13 Jan 1999 13.15 EST
“WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
“FDR and His Women”
“… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton
_______________________________
1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault
WordPress censored here.
AI Overview
The Archdiocese of San Francisco agreed to a $395 million settlement to resolve lawsuits filed by roughly 530 survivors of childhood sexual abuse. This landmark agreement resolves the archdiocese’s bankruptcy case and is considered the largest bankruptcy deal of its kind by a U.S. Catholic organization.
Sex With Two Women and a Confrontation With a Third Close Woman Companion
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Which] Doctor King’s Best Friend”
But in friendships in which one person greatly outshines the other, a curious mixture of love, envy and competition can sometimes lead to a lingering, often unspoken resentment. Mr. Abernathy’s reasons for providing a detailed description of his friend’s last evening and early morning – during which King had sexual encounters with two women and a confrontation with a third close woman companion – can be known only to him.
– NY Times
Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Billionaires and Appeals Court Judges? What’s wrong with this picture?
Did “Goofy” Gavin despise his father and friends, other benefactors, and Canadian countrymen?
Gavin Christopher Newsom was born on October 10, 1967, in San Francisco, California, to…William Alfred Newsom III, a state appeals court judge and attorney for Getty Oil.[2] He is a descendant of the Newsom family of architects…who originally came from Canada.[3] William Newsom was a close friend of billionaire heir Gordon Getty, who repeatedly supported Gavin’s career.[4] William Newsom would also for a time help manage the Getty Trust.[5] – Wiki
Pensions are collective billionaires purchasing property via another entity. What happens to your pensions? Trump doesn’t own Trump Tower. What’s the story there?
Funny, that same Constitution which was denounced as a relic of racism is suddenly a fountainhead of socialism–kind of like Alexander Hamilton being black or limiting free speech to “protect democracy.” If anyone doesn’t hate liberals for their insane hypocrisy, he’s not paying attention.
Did the Constitution address “racism,” a social concern, or “slavery,” one of an economic nature?
Slavery was resolved in the 1860s. Institutional racism was resolved in the 1960s. The Constitutional process played a constructive role in both, but whiners gotta whine. As has been noted on this blog, “The supply of racism exceeds its demand.”
You didn’t cite the Constitution.
13th Amendment and 24th Amendment, which have been in effect probably longer than you’ve been alive.
The only argument you have is the 3/5 rule, and that went away when the Confederacy surrendered (and at the time, Democrats were mad about that surrender). You Democrats too often manage to be on the wrong side of history, and you’re wrong now.
Globalist/leftism/jihadism has become a sick ideology. The only question is how much you’ll ruin before you ruin yourselves.
Slavery was legal and duly legislated; all Lincoln could do legally was advocate for legislation to abolish it. Lincoln chose the high-criminal route, and every act he undertook subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of non-prohibited secession was equally illicit and unconstitutional and remains so.
Racism is freedom of thought, speech, choice, distinction, discrimination, etc., and certainly an aspect of the right to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Do people usually obey the orders of a mad man with a gun to their head? Yes.
You didn’t cite the Constitution.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
OK , then you cite it.
One fun fact:
The Great Depression was largely and partly caused by working class consumers losing spending power.
Due to extreme inequality between the robber barons and the working class.
There are two great bi-partisan documentaries on this:
“Saving Capitalism” and “Inequality For All”.
The documentary presents facts that closely mirror the inequality that helped cause the Great Depression.
If Trump wants a legacy, Herbert Hoover (Hoovervilles) is a very bad one for the history books.
TL;DR:
Lithium (medication)
Certain lithium compounds, also known as lithium salts, are used as psychiatric medication,[4] primarily for bipolar disorder and for major depressive disorder.[4][5] Lithium is taken orally (by mouth).[4]
Lithium salts are classified as mood stabilizers.[4] Lithium’s mechanism of action is not known.[4]
Lithium is primarily used as a maintenance drug in the treatment of bipolar disorder to stabilize mood and prevent manic episodes. It is also effective in the acute treatment of manic episodes. It is effective for mania within the first 7 days of treatment.[25][26]: 25
For acute treatment, although recommended by treatment guidelines for the treatment of depression in bipolar disorder, the evidence that lithium is superior to placebo for acute bipolar depression is low-quality.[27][28] Atypical antipsychotics are considered more effective for treating acute bipolar depressive episodes.[29] Lithium is effective for the long term prevention of bipolar depressive episodes.[30]
Lithium treatment was previously considered to be unsuitable for children, however more recent studies show its effectiveness for treatment of early-onset bipolar disorder in children as young as eight. The required dosage is slightly less than the toxic level (representing a low therapeutic index), requiring close monitoring of blood levels of lithium during treatment.[31] Within the therapeutic range there is a dose-response relationship.[32]
A limited amount of evidence suggests lithium carbonate may contribute to the treatment of substance use disorders for some people with bipolar disorder.[33][34][35] People with bipolar disorder are at a 3 times higher risk for dementia.[36][26]: 65 Lithium reduces the risk of dementia by 50% among people with bipolar disorder.[26]: 25 [37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_(medication)#Medical_uses
He might double the normal dosage, too. His is a bad case of TDS.
AI Overview
“Commitment” is the formal legal process where authorities, through a court order, admit an individual to a psychiatric facility against their will. This happens when a person is deemed a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled due to a severe mental disorder.
Does AI know about “Writ” of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, Sec. 9)?
Is that “the formal legal process?”
WordPress censored.
Is that “the formal legal process?”
“The required dosage is slightly less than the toxic level” and you want to double the dosage? That would be reckless.
Skip the Lithium. He needs a brain transplant.
Doubling his normal dosage on fentanyl might provide a more permanent cur, for all involved or affected…
Lithium long term destroys the brain. Because lithium isn’t being disposed of correctly it will soon be in the water supply rendering all Americans to idiots. Ancient Roman’s used lead in glazing pottery. It lead to its fall. Same idea…
“It’s the [FDR communism], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
AI Overview
Some economists and historians argue that certain policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) prolonged or exacerbated the Great Depression. Critics point to specific New Deal measures that intervened in market forces, creating economic friction rather than fostering recovery.
and FDR sent all the jobless to CCCC camps to keep them from rioting against his enormous failures.
There is no consensus among economists and historians regarding the exact causes of the Great Depression. There are four factors that are considered contributory, but no single factor as ‘the cause.’ And it wasn’t Hoover. In fact much of it was caused by Roosevelt, unelected bureaucrats (The Federal Reserve) and Foreign Central Bankers.
1. The stock market crash of 1929. Lack of banking regulation allowed people of ordinary means to use much of their disposable income, or even home equity, to buy stock on margin. By the end of the decade hundreds of millions of shares were being carried on margin, meaning that their purchase price was financed with loans to be repaid with profits generated from ever-increasing share prices. When the market dropped, bankruptcies and the banking crises ensued as EVERYONE who played the margin game lost their shirts.
2. The Banking Crisis & Monetary Contraction. Between 1930 and 1932 the United States experienced four extended banking panics, during which large numbers of bank customers, fearful of their bank’s solvency, simultaneously attempted to withdraw their deposits in cash. As people rushed in to get their money, banks failed. By 1933 one-in-five banks had failed.
Roosevelt closed the banks in 1933, and they had to prove they were solvent to re-open. That destroyed credit which hampered business. Additionally, the Federal Reserve jacked interest rates to slow the economy by making borrowing more expensive in order to protect the gold supply. This caused deflation which further hampered businesses as low-margin items, like foodstuffs, became unprofitable.
3. The gold standard. As the United States experienced declining output and deflation, the US ran a trade surplus with other countries because Americans were buying fewer imported goods, while American exports were relatively cheap. Consequently, foreign central banks attempted to counteract the trade imbalance by raising their interest rates, which had the effect of reducing output and prices and increasing unemployment in their countries. The resulting international economic decline, especially in Europe, was nearly as bad as that in the United States.
4. Lending by U.S. banks to foreign countries fell, partly because of relatively high U.S. interest rates. This caused many economies (Argentina, Great Britain, Brazil, Germany, etc.) to slow down which also harmed the US export economy and created surpluses in agriculture and industrial products. for which the market had dried up. Ultimately, the policy chosen to deal with this was The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930), that imposed steep tariffs (averaging 20 percent) on a wide range of agricultural and industrial products. The goal was to force US consumers to buy cheaper American goods by increasing the cost of imports. It further harmed Europe and American exports when foreign nations retaliated.
They didn’t teach you that in HS. They just blamed the stock-market crash and the tariffs. That’s because those who write the superficial histories you learn are not entirely honest.
Simply put, a free economy would have recovered if not destroyed by Comrade Secretary General FDR.
FDR created a legion of insatiable communist bellyachers and parasites.
As my father-in-law, born in 1917 and 12 years of age in 1929, said to me long ago, “You could always get a job. You might not like the job, but you could always get a job.”
They didn’t teach you that in HS. That’s because it would take a decade to research the full complexity that is left out of “actchually” responses like that one. You got to 4 points. There were 40 million of them.
wrong. working class had no $ because of the depression not the other way around.
Fools are always free to lose.
Bill Clinton and real fiscal-conervative Republicans in Congress was the last time the federal government lived within it’s annual budget.
In the 21st Century no president has been fiscal-conservatives on following the annual budget – except Barack Obama.
After Bush & Cheney’s borrow & spend policies almost collapsed the Stock Market. Obama lowered the annual budget deficit “lower” than the debt ran up by the Bush Administration and his Republican controlled Congress.
Today there are few Republicans that are fiscal-conservative. There is some good news, Trump’s illegal conflicts-of-interest netted him $2 billion!
If you had sound mental health you would not need to use this blog as your ego stroke considering you have no friends, no relatives, no love relationships. All you have is your make believe world created by your deep psychological problems. No one believes you no matter how many different email addresses you use to comment under a multi-colored avatar
Everyone sees right through your psychological toxic persona
Deficits are complicated – because the first year of any presidents term runs under the Budget of the prior president.
Clinton ran small surpluses for 4 years and would have eventuially eliminated the national debt.
Bush ran small – by current terms deficits that were a problem but not a massive one.
EXCEPT that a massive stimulus package to counter the financial crisis resulted in a huge defict for the 2008-2009 fiscal year – That deficit is atleast party on Obama – as he spending while part of the 2008-2009 fiscal year – was passed while he was president.
But WORSE still – that increases spending then became the baseline for future budgets.
While huger deficits continued through the Obama years – they never delined to Bush levels, Further in 2016 they started rising again.
Trump did nothing to contain rising deficits.
In 2020 Covid AGAIN provided an excuse for massive govenrment stimulus. Sending the deficit higher then ever before.
While the deficit declined in 2021 and 2022 – it never got lower than the high for Obama, and started rising again under Biden and continues to rise under Trump.
Today the federal deficit is nearly as large as the entire federal budget under Clinton.
But the most Critical problem is that Federal Spending has been rising for decades faster than inflation and faster than the economy is growing.
You are correct that the 2009 fiscal year deficit—which skyrocketed to $1.4 trillion—belonged to both administrations. President Bush signed the initial $700 billion TARP bank bailout in late 2008, and President Obama signed the $831 billion ARRA stimulus package in early 2009.
The structural failure wasn’t just that this spending became the “new baseline.” It was that the economy suffered a systemic collapse that permanently reduced federal tax revenues for years. When the tax base shrinks and you inject trillions in emergency funding, the deficit explodes.
To track the deficit without mentioning revenue is structurally incomplete. The reason deficits “never declined to Bush levels” and started aggressively climbing again in 2018 is due to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
According to non-partisan data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), those tax cuts added roughly $1.9 trillion to the national debt over a decade. Proponents argued the cuts would “pay for themselves” through hyper-growth. Instead, they permanently choked off federal revenue right before the next global crisis hit.
You rightly point out that the massive bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages in 2020 and 2021 sent the deficit to a record $3.1 trillion, and that it has risen under subsequent administrations.
The problem today is that both parties have abandoned fiscal discipline. The Trump administration’s extension of the 2017 tax cuts, combined with bipartisan defense spending increases and rising interest rates on our existing $34+ trillion debt, means the government is now spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year just to pay the interest on what we’ve already borrowed.
The claim that federal spending is rising faster than the economy is only true during crisis years. Historically, U.S. government spending has hovered tightly around 20% to 24% of GDP for decades.
The deficit is widening because we are trying to run a 21st-century superpower—with an aging population relying on Social Security and Medicare, expanding military commitments, and crumbling infrastructure—while maintaining a tax code that collects revenue as if we are still in the 1990s.
Bigger government isn’t inherently the problem, and smaller government isn’t a magical cure. The deficit is expanding because politicians from both parties prefer to pass popular spending packages and hand out popular tax cuts, while refusing to balance the ledger with sustainable revenue streams.
Tax revenue collapsed because the tax rates were reduced.
“Trump did nothing to contain rising deficits.”
Sure.
Put it correctly.
Trump gutted the Federal budget to give big returns to the oligarchs.
The spending is one side. The collapse in collections is far larger.
In the end it matters not how big the hole in the bucket is if no one refills it. It may drain fast or slow, but without being refilled it will empty.
It wasn’t due to the pervert predator Bill Clinton, it was due to Newt Gingrich and Tip O’Neil in Congress that dragged Clinton to fiscal balance. In turn Clinton cut intelligence spending and at that moment it is what led to 9/11 with Bin Laden. The Clintons are THE biggest criminals next to the Biden’s in US history.
9/11 happened because the FAA told pilots to negotiate with hijackers. The belief was that the pilots were safe because the hijackers would not know how to fly a plane. This was in spite of a number of prior cases where allowing access to the controls/flight deck caused the aircraft to crash. There was also the belief that hijackers would use the lives of the crew and the passengers and the value of the plane as a negotiation tool to bargain for some concession.
An additional failure was the allowance of razor sharp knives onto planes, easily capable of cutting the throat of a flight attendant or pilot, on the basis the blade was not over some limit.
Lest this be seen as unforeseen, there is a letter from one of the Wright Brothers on the subject of flying aircraft over cities that suggested it could be a great disaster if a plane were to hit a building. I believe this letter was written in the 1930s. The topic of the time was a suggestion that runways be created at close intervals due to the lack of reliability in aircraft engines at the time, but it still noted that planes could destroy buildings.
Nothing the intelligence community needed to avoid 9/11 needed them to keep tabs on bin Laden.
The best part of Trump’s sudden wealth is he got it from MAGA suckers who emptied their bank accounts to get what Trump sold and saw their “investments” drop 80-98% from what they put in.
It’s hilarious, but they still blame the Liberals for that value drop. I think Trump should go after that bucket of cash again and again and put them on the street in their underwear.
“Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.”
P. J. O’Rourke (before the TDS set in…)
Democrats and DSA clowns have no concept of the idea that wealth is something that is produced and grown and not something that simply pre-exists within an economy. Government does not produce wealth. It’s produced by inventors, builders, entrepreneurs, tradesman, innovators, investors and others willing to take risks, many of whom either are or are on the way to becoming millionaires and billionaires. It is not produced by bureaucrats and elected officials.
also, Collectivism doesn’t work because people don’t seek to be poorer.
“People don’t seek to be poorer” They do when there is a government program that gives them free money based on their poverty level and number of nits they produce.
Wealth is things not money. Money is negative value since the feds have to make sure it loses several percent a year.
The feds have dollars that are profitable only to the government who prints it. They’ve basically taxed our cash.
Every local government has already stuck their teeth into real estate and land.
Our labor is taxed unless you choose not to work and most people follow their perceived self-interest.
Food and clothing gracefully not taxed as hungry naked people are undesired.
Wanna buy a tent? sales tax.
The dems say more taxes. That’s not freedom. Republican’s strength should be fiscal conservatism: The American Dream.
Wealth is value – Dollars are the way we measure value.
Total Money supply in the US is about 1/5th of the total capital in US stock exchanges and an even smaller portion of total US wealth.
The value of US stocks is NOT counted as part of US money supply – despite the fact that stocks and pretty much all other financial instruments are indistinguishable from money.
Wealth is real assets – Money is a promise of value – nothing more.
You get paid in dollars for your work – you use those dollars to buy food or other things of value. That is wealth.
You are paid to produce wealth. Much of the wealth that is produces is consumed – food, healthcare energy.
But some of it is not consumed and total wealth increases.
The more wealth we have – no matter where that wealth is – the more we can produce,
That means we can BOTH consume more now AND produce more to consume in the future.
There are many elements to the defintion of money – but money is just a means of measuring, storing and moving wealth.
it is normally NOT actual wealth – though it is always a promise – a claim of real wealth.
“Money is negative value since the feds have to make sure it loses several percent a year.”
Normally the FED grows money supply by about 2%/year – that is literally inflation.
Though in the modern economy it is more complicated – because the speed with which money flows through the economy increases the apparent money supply.
The fed can “print” money loaning it to banks who then lend it to us – in the form of mortgages or other loans – this purportedly stimulates the economy, but it also increases money supply – increases inflation and the Fed does NOT control the quality of the loans that banks issue. If the banks make loans that are repaid – they profit on the money that the FED created out of thin air. But if they make bad loans these are not repaid and the entire fiancial systems slows down even locks up – causing recession or depression. Worse still – if the economy slows with a large badly invested money supply – you can get inflation and high interest rates.
The fed can also loan the money it “prints” to the government – that causes inflation – and contra left wing nuts – that money must be repaid. If it is not repaid the inflationary effect is even greater.
The FED can “print” about the same amount of new money as the growth in the economy with only small amounts of inflation.
If it “prints” more there is inflation.
So why does the FED exist ? If the Money supply is actually fixed – or nearly fixed such as when we decide that gold is the base for money AND we FIX the value of gold and do not change it. The economy will entirely self regulate. But that has NEVER been reality. The US constitution put the US on a bimetal standard and allowed congress to set the value of gold and silver. That was absolutely disastrous and stupid it is bad to allow any govenrment to control the money supply – the history of government game playing with money is as long as history itself. But fixing the value of money to TWO assets is a total disaster – if Congress ever gets the price of one relative to the other wrong even by a little – that is an oportunity for speculators to create money from thin air on their own through speculation. ONE means of profiting for nothing is to buy the under-priced metal from the government and sell it for more on the market – but there are infinitely more. Charles Ponzi’s failure was a permutation of this – he discovered that he could byy postage stamps in italy and sell them in the US for more than he paid for them – again a license to “print” your own money. But he accepted more investors than he was able to transport stamps, and then the investors cashed out early on returns he guaranteed, leaving him unable to buy more stamps to make more money and unable to repay later investors. Technically Ponzi’s scheme was NOT a true ponzi scheme – it would have worked if he did not pay investors until the profits from stamp purchases THEY paid for were realized.
Regardless the point is that speculation in the value of money can be extremely lucrative – and exists today. It also can be extremely dangerous – not just to speculators – which would be fine, but to governments and the economy as a whole IF and ONLY IF govenrment is involved in setting the price of the base for money and IF and ONLY IF governemnt gets it wrong – even buy a little. Speculating in the value of money when that value set bu the market can result in winners and losers from speculation.
But it can not cause the financial market to fail. When government is involved – the value of money is not set by the market and a badly set value results in massive and lopsided speculation and the result eventually will be an artificial shortage and the flow of money seizing – and that can take out the whole economy.
In the 19th century the function of the Fed as the lender of last resort was taken over by the uber wealthy. They dumped money into the financial system when it seized. But this was risky to thiem – though the reward was large and the Fed was created because the uber wealthy got tired of this and demanded the creation of the FED.
That is also why the FED is this weird hybrid – only Part Government – it is still a collection of Government chartered privately owned banks. With partly federally appointed governors. The control of money is now split between the same people who bailed out the financial system through the 19th century – who are the owners of the federally chartered banks, and the directors appointed by the presidents. It is just as possible for the Fed to F$%K up as it was for congress to in the past, – but it is purportedly less likely. That said the Great Depression, the Great recession and slightly less than half of the recessions and depressions in US history have occured while the FED was running things. They are NOT really doing much better than was done before – and that is really bad as it was Congress that was screwing up before – and that it so be expected.
Just to be clear I am NOT a “gold Crank” – all money is Fiat -= including gold – there is no “use value” of gold that justifies a price of 4500/oz and the only difference between gold and shells or paper money is that if everything does go to h311 there is some small use value to gold. Gold is a good foundation for money because there is a relatively fixed supply which grows slowly. That is about it. But anything that is difficult for govenrnments or speculators to try to manipulate is a good choice.
Crypto currencies are NOT YET at a point to be able to truly replace government money – but they are slowly approaching that. In the long run I expect they will.
Though there is an open question as to whether that will be government created crypto or market created crypto That does not matter alot so long as the government crypto is implimented EXACTLY the same as Bitcoin etc. The great danger is that Government will create something that they can continue to manipulate like they do everything else.
Wealth is income-producing capacity. That’s why wealth cannot be transferred by giving a lump-sum of money.
Transfer of $ by inheritance shows the folly of the lump-sum — as the recipient heir pees away the $ on drugs, gambling, vacations, consumption….and then it’s all gone.
Wealth has to be learned, both by learning to provide a valued service or material good, and then by learning how to save and invest the income received.
Poorer Americans need to be trained (educated) on wealth, what it actually is, and how to build it.
Money is a promise of negative value over time. Buy something with it to keep that value instead of letting the fed take it.
The best way to fund govenrment is via sales taxes – Tarriffs are similar and not quite as good – but they are superior to income taxes, capital gans taxes and wealth or property taxes.
Sales taxes are a consumption tax – which is exactly what you want – you do not want to tax investment, wealth taxes are just a worse way to tax investment.
Sales taxes ensure that Everyone has an interest in how government spends money.
How long do you think a $6T govenrment budget would continue if ordinary people knew they were paying for it ?
Joe spends $10,000 on goods and is taxed on those purchases. Joe has an income of $30,000 a year and so a 10% sales tax would amount to 1/30th of his income.
Mike spends $500,000 on goods and is taxed on those purchases. Mike has an income of $450M so a 10% sales tax would amount to 1/9000ths of his income.
While Joe and Mike both have an interest in how government spends the money, Mike has about $499,500,000 to use to bribe the politicians to allow his taxes to be reduced. Joe may have $0 left every year after paying for food, rent, and medical costs while Mike can spend tens of millions of dollars on those things and still not dent the income, which is moved into generally non-taxable investments.
Beware Of Joe The Plumber
In 2008, Barrack Obama was on the campaign trail when he came across a plumber named Joe who was deeply concerned about a tax hike Obama had proposed for those making more than $250,000 per year.
It turned out that Joe only grossed about $30,000 per year. So Joe had virtually nothing to fear regarding Obama’s proposed tax hike. Nevertheless, Joe was seriously preoccupied with the welfare of those much richer than himself.
So it’s important to keep Joe in mind when reading comments on this thread today. None of Estovir’s puppets, or any of the real conservatives, are anywhere near billionaire status. But they are profoundly concerned for the welfare of billionaires.
Because the wealth of bnillionaires is the capital that drives the entire economy.
You can not wreak havoc on the economy better and faster than by a wealth tax.
You want Disney, Amazon,. Apple, Google, City Bank Exon, – every other business in the US to produce less of what you want and need at higher prices – there is no faster or better way to accomplish than than a wealth tax.
Further not only is this of everyone’s interests – because the wealth of billionaires is the capital that provides the rest of us with what we want and need,
but because I would bet that every poster on this board over 60 that is not a complete and total moron (and many that are) is worth atleast a million dollars.
If you are not – your in trouble. Through out history the YOUNG live directly off their labor. The old live off the wealth they saved when they were young.
Further it is THAT Wealth that makes it possible for the young to live WELL of their labor.
In pre-revolutionary france 90% of people lived by agriculture – and they were poor. A tiny portion lived off of invested wealth – the land owners – the uber rich.
And in comparison to the working class today THEY WERE POOR.
One of the massive benefits of free markets are than it encourages investment. Sometimes that is sweat equity – but it is still investment.
Whether you have your employer matching contributions to your 401K – or you are part of a startup and much of your compensation is stock in a startup that wither will be worth a fortune or nothing – that is still investing to build future wealth. YOUR investment – both NOW and throughout your life – creates the businesses and jobs that allow others to profit off their labor.
High overall standards of living are only acheivable when we have created lots of capital – wealth to invest.
@ John Say,
You are conflating the unproductive, hoarded personal fortunes of individual billionaires with the actual productive capital used by corporations to build products. A wealth tax does not seize a company’s factories, and it does not touch the nest egg of an ordinary retiree over 60.
Your bet that “every poster over 60 is worth at least a million dollars” completely misses the target of modern wealth tax proposals.
The Billionaire’s Tax proposals championed by democratic socialists do not apply to families with a net worth of $1 million, $5 million, or even $20 million.These policies explicitly target individuals with net worths exceeding $50 million or $1 billion.
If a retiree has saved a few million dollars in a 401(k) or home equity to fund their retirement, a wealth tax touches exactly $0 of their money. Conflating a middle-class or upper-middle-class retiree’s retirement fund with Elon Musk’s or Jeff Bezos’s fortunes is fearmongering, not economic analysis.
A wealth tax is a personal tax on an individual’s net worth, not a tax on a corporation’s balance sheet. If a billionaire is taxed on their personal stock holdings, the corporation still retains its factories, its research and development budgets, its inventory, and its cash reserves.
The company keeps operating exactly as before. The only difference is that a fraction of the billionaire’s personal shares change hands or are liquidated to pay the tax. The physical capital driving the economy remains completely intact.
The 90% of French citizens who lived in squalor were poor precisely because a tiny, untaxed oligarchy of wealthy landowners hoarded all the country’s capital and assets. The monarchy refused to tax the nobility’s wealth, placing the entire fiscal burden of the state onto the working class through consumption taxes. That absolute refusal to implement a progressive tax on extreme wealth is exactly what caused the economy to seize up and triggered the revolution.
No one is arguing against creating capital or encouraging investment. Modern democratic socialists are arguing that when capital becomes so concentrated that a handful of individuals hold more wealth than half the population combined, the system breaks. A wealth tax ensures that the economic gains of a society are recycled back into the public infrastructure that allows the next generation of workers and startups to innovate, invest, and thrive.
Esquire sure does sound like X-ie/georgie to me
In theory, a tax is tied to an event: the income tax, the excise tax, the sales tax, and the death tax are associated with events. What event is the wealth tax associated with? It is a tax on what someone is.
Property tax. It’s tied to the start of a fiscal year.
On an annual basis, Trump is the most liberal spender of your taxpayer dollars. More than any Democrat in modern history.
The cheapest way to pay off Trump’s liberal spending spree is by raising revenue (additional taxes). The most expensive way is by putting his liberal spending on credit for your children and grandchildren to pay back.
Trump chose the most expensive option to burden future generations with his liberal spending.
False = While Trump is not even close to an actual fiscal conservative – and he did Trigger the greatest spending increase in US history with Covid Stimulus – that Spending GREW and continued with Biden.
While any rational fiscal consevative will tall you that we should get the deficit to Zero and slowly pay down debt except in REAL emergencies – nto manufactured ones.
at the opposite end – whether a government is fiscally sound or dangerously spendthrift depends on the relationship between Government spending and the growth of the economy. If Spending is growing faster than the economy – that is unsustainable. If spending is rising slower than the economy – that is not great but sustainable.
Trump is unsustainable. Both Obama and Biden were actually worse.
US GDP in 2009 was 14.5T The federal budget was 3.5 T – Government spending at over 24% of GDP
US GDP 2025 32T Federal Budget 7.1T Govenrment spending at over 22% of GDP.
OIbama’s federal govenrment was 10% less sound than Trump’s
Neither are good.
Drug Dealers (Newsom & Cal Legislature Members) don’t consume their own product personally.
1. It increases their overhead burden
2. Puts them at risk of the addiction they peddle
3. limits their ability to expand supply
Newsom (and spouse) will leave California at some point (Pelosi did). Perhaps following Dan Goldman’s trail.
As for California, the damage is done (Debt) and will take time to heal. More time than Newsom will care to spend.
His wife stands to inherit a hefty sum, so that to will prompt them to move out of the High Tax state to reasonable shores.
Newsom peddles Taxes, particularly when He cannot barrow to pay off his State Budgeted credit cards (State Deficit Expenditure) .
RUNAWAY Gavin Run ~ It’s what he dose best.
The top 10% of earners accounted for 70.5% of all income taxes paid in 2023, while the top 25% were responsible for 86.3%.
It is all a lie! The left has already taxed the rich. Make no mistake about it, now they want them gone.
Tax the rich, feed the poor,
‘Til there are no rich no more.
Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me, where is sanity?
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
The USA already taxes the rich nearly exclusively. If you need more from them I suggest you are envy driven instead of self-esteem driven.
The National Debt is at $40 trillion. Paying that debt down should be a bipartisan national priority.
Don’t look to Bernie Bros to make that happen. But it won’t happen with tax cuts either.
It depends. Who do we owe those trillions TO?
Tariffs work, AND they help build a stronger America.
Who we owe the money to matters very little.
First and actually unfortunate for the US – is NO ONE is ever going to call the US debt. While China owns a smaller proportion of US debt than in the past,
Even China will not call US debt. China’s economy is dependent world trade – mostly with the US. Calling US debt would tank the entire global economy.
ALL Taxes are harmful. Tariffs are almost the least economically harmful form of taxation – bad – but not as bad as income or investment or wealth taxes.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid et al. are unconstitutional.
WordPress censored.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid et al. are unconstitutional.
Eventually, someone working a fast food job will be the wealthy.
“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul” – George Bernard Shaw
Yes, two eggs, bacon, grits, coffee and a biscuit for two now around $32.00 and the tip starts at 25%.
There is no such thing as a cheap breakfast…
Eisenhower had a top tax rate exceeding 70%, more than any modern day Democrats. Reagan passed 11 tax increases without a single veto.
So Turley is saying for Democrats to stop acting like Republicans?
Eisenhower wanted to pay-off WWII. That was responsible management. And currently the National Debt is at WWII levels (adjusted for inflation).
Do not get sucked into this taxes were higher in the past nonsense – it is BS – no one actually paid 70%.
No, Republicans are saying we want less taxes. Haven’t you been paying attention?
tell me when Dumbocrats ever called for less taxes.
Why don’t you just say you’re in favor of taxation for the furtherance of socialism?
37% for $626,000 and up.
21% corporate taxation on earnings.
That would be a combined federal rate of 58%, with many States throwing on another 6+%, 64% +/-.
Millionaires and billionaires would typically structure their wealth and income to pay 37% on a limited amount and then park their remaining wealth in stock and stock options to be realized at their best benefit. They would declare their assets such as boats, planes, properties as business related and take write offs and losses where legitimately available.
They create new millionaires, thousands of jobs and billions in taxable commerce, taxation cannot out weigh their risk for profit.
No tax on weath.
No property taxes.,
No income taxes.
Federal State and local Sales taxes.
Everyone has a stake in govenrment.
The uber wealthy have less influence.
Flat tax, all animals are the same
The current US average rate of total taxation is 39% – I do not think a single European country has a total max tax rate of 58 or 64%
“Millionaires and billionaires would typically structure ”
Which is exactly what you do NOT want ANYONE to do.
You do NOT want taxes to EVER be the basis for making life choices.
You want people making 10K, 100K, 1M, 100M, 10B/yr making the choices that create the most wealth – that is great for them and great for everyone else.
That is what happens automatically in a free market where people do NOT structure what they do because of taxes.
The correct tax on wealth is ZERO
We want Wealth to grow – Wealth is what we produce – we want to produce as much as possible.
The more we produce the higher our standard of living.
The correct tax on profits is ZERO -0 the reason we produce is to profit – to become more wealthy – AGAIN we want MORE wealth not less.
The correct tax on INCOME is ZERO
All taxes should be on CONSUMPTION – not production.
That means sales taxes and tariffs.
That results in everyone having an interest in taxes and government spending.
Do you think the federal govenrment could spend $7.1T if EVERYONE knew that they would have to pay a sales tax of 22% on EVERYTHING they buy to pay for that spending ?
Actually, Eisenhower inherited a top tax rate of 92% from Democrats.
During his administration Congress passed legislation lowering the top statutory rate to 70%. BUT- and it’s a huge BUT – the legislation included a complex system of exemptions, deductions, incentives, loopholes, employment-related benefits, and legal shelters. That lowered what economists call the EFFECTIVE tax rate to well below the top 70% statutory rate. The effective tax rate is usually cited to have been around 40% during the Eisenhower. Still way to high, but far from either the statutory rate of 70% of the Democrats 92% (almost nobody paid that tax rate either).
When I see people trot out the argument you did, I always wonder if the person is legitimately ignorant or engaged in intentional deception. When a famous, award winning economist does it, we know with certainty he is engaged in intentional deception.
But anonymous internet commenters may not know any better. They may simply be puking up the misinformation fed to them by intentional deceivers.
Based on US tax histrory – and the work of economists like Christine Romer – Obama’s cheif economic advisor that the revenue optimizing maximum Income tax rate is very close to 33% – slight increases or decreases from that have negligible effect on Tax revenue – why ? Because SLIGHT decreases stimulate the economy – almost enough to pay for the lat revenuer and slight increases reduce the economy and slightly reduce government income.
The left likes to rant that the laffler curve is just vodoo economics – but the FACT is that it is just math and the laws of supply and demand. The more something costs they fewer people buy. The higher taxes are the less the most productive people invest – and the less they invest the less we all produce.
Not this nonsense again – Absolutely prior to JFK the highest tax rates were extremely high – AS WERE ALL THE EXEMPTIONS.
No one not a moron paid 70%.
Fropm JFK onward the patter has been lower upper marginal tax rates and the elimination of deductions The result has been the top earners int he country making more money and the economy growing faster and the top earners paying almost all the cost of govenrment.
If you return to the tax rules of the 50’s you will
TTank the economy and he uber rich will pay LESS not more.
Is hat actually what you want ?
Now Why is it that the ACtual effective tax rate in the 50’s was not 70% ? Because at anything over 35% taxes high earners stop producing.
Elon Musk is worth near a trillion dollars – is there ANY difference in the opulence of Musks lifer style and that of Trump worth about 1/100th of what Musk is worth.
BEFORE Musk bought Tesla – he could have STOPPED completely – he had more than enough wealth to live as comfortably as he does today for the rest of his life.
Instead he created the worlds 7th and 11th largest companies – SpaceX and Tesla. Together that is 3.5T in value that would not exist but for Musk.
Do you think Musk would have done so if there was nothing in it for him ?
Would it have even been possible with Tax rates at 70% – You can not create companies like that with REAL tax rates that high.
The FACT is ACTUAL TAX RATES were NEVER that high – if they truly had been the economy would have collapsed.
Real tax rates for the rich are higher today than ever before – but they are also more stable and predictable and the rich are less able or interested in gaming them – the rules are fixed and that is what is needed to create wealth – and you create wealth for your self by creating both wealth and value for others.
none of this is new.
BTW the correct income tax is ZERO.
All taxes except sales taxes should be eliminated – sales taxes give every single person an interest in govenrment spending, and a voice.
And actually significantly diminish the influence of he uber wealthy.
Worth remembering something while we’re all arguing the merits of a wealth tax. None of it matters much if they pack the court. Every bad idea sitting on the shelf, wealth tax or whatever comes after it, gets a rubber stamp the second they’ve got the votes on the bench. Believe them when they say that’s the plan.
Does everyone left of center suffer from such low self-esteem that they believe they cannot care for themselves in a country that provides every opportunity for success? I mean even homeless people here are richer than 99% of humans worldwide and even throughout history.