I wonder if they will argue that wealth tax is discriminatory. I don't see any other way for it to be challenges since power to raise revenue is vested with Congress so they have pretty broad power to do so as long as it is properly apportioned
My understanding of the article is that the Moores are suing probably based on the difference between wealth and income.
The Trump policy stipulates that if you own 10+% of a foreign business, you are taxed on the value of that ownership. Valuation is a function of wealth as I understand it because it's folded into how much a person is deemed "worth." Something similar here is property or stocks. If you own so many shares of a company, you are "worth the value" of those stocks even though that isn't currency at your disposal. That's why people are taxed on the value of stocks they sell because now that's moved from an imaginary realm of value into income into the bank account.
The Moores are saying: but valuation isn't income, so you can't tax us.
The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal.
I don't think an argument about discrimination is at all on the table. I think it'll be a more pedantic argument of value, wealth, and income - which of these is taxable and which of these are imaginary (with real outcomes).
This is a complex notion for a non-legal person such as myself. The Trump tax package was absolute bullshit, but even I am surprised this one provision was in it. Surely this was created to hurt people Trump deemed as enemies, such as Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao, but then "ordinary" rich people like the Moores got swept up into it. I am very much in favor of more taxes on the rich, especially for overseas finances, which often is sheltered from federal taxation and transparency. But even I am torn about trying to make the distinction between valuation and income, and which should be taxable.
I did not click the article or read the cases so thank you for providing this summary.
"The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal."
This is a bad argument... you get taxed on your house and chattel property by lower branch of government at that. You get taxed on the value of the property. Similar legal underpinnings can be used for a wealth tax.
So here it sounds like, case is specific to ownership of foreign equity. I am not sure why this was implemented and honestly I have not heard of it. We have controlled foreign companies rules in place to target foreign earned income of us residents, which is riddled with holes like swiss cheese. For example, tax code provides an exclusion from this regime for companies utilizing foreign contract manufacturers. What has happened to US manufacturing over last 30 years... asking for friend. But i digress.
The title is a bit misleading since this is an a wealth tax per se and it was not really structured as such. If the policy makers went this route, they almost certain wanted it to be over turned, the legal underpinnings are just not there.
Call it what it is, and tax it as such as long as it is fair to the class of people being subjected to the regime, there is not reason for corrupt geriatric council to be involved.
The tax implications are far beyond my life experience as someone who qualifies for the 1040EZ form every year lol
I'm not sure if this was a Trumpian Easter egg bomb that was planted and waiting to be discovered for the purpose of further eroding the federal government's ability to raise funds through the IRS. That does sound like it comes from the conservative playbook, but the way this particular case has played out sounds like it required far more foresight than what Trump and his sycophants could have devised without external help.
You make an excellent case about the taxation on value for homes taking place at the municipal level, but the case for stocks is at the federal level, so I can see why business dealings might fall under the scope of federal taxation.
I think if this particular court case was only about the scope of the 16th amendment, then it would be a bit more cut and dry. However, the lawyers for the Moores are also pushing rhetoric that this court decision should also be instrumental in guiding and shaping future legislation on wealth tax and that is so incredibly unethical and problematic. That is not the role of the court and should not be one of its aims.
Because two things are at issue here, I find it hard to pick a side to root for: yes, defeat for the Moores so the law stands and proposals for future wealth tax legislation aren't encumbered by this decision; or yes, a tax policy part of an otherwise regressive tax system implemented by an authoritarian criminal is defeated to really stick it in that guy's eye, but now Pandora's box is opened for nearly all taxation on wealth to have new precedent set and possibly stymy good, progressive legislation proposals.
Unregulated, unmitigated, and unsupportable corrupt capitalism is what is killing Democracy. In the US there is no left leaning party, it is either Fascists, or Moderates.
They have to protect their fiscal interests. How else will they go on extravagant trips without owing a thing?
I grow to hate my home country more every day.
I remember when the justices were going through supreme court confirmation hearings and they said they couldn't answer hypotheticals. Turns out they were lying to get the job and they CAN use hypotheticals to strip away citizen's rights they don't like.
What's really cool is that if you look at any of the landmark decisions of this court, you will find olympic level mental gymnastics to justify those decisions. Like, sure, you can be a regular person and look at the decisions and go "well that's unjust" but what's really rad is that when you look at the "logic" they used to arrive at those decisions, it'll just piss you off more! Strict Scrutiny podcast does a great job of highlighting just how this court does not give a fuck about a century or two of history.
No branch of Government should be above reproach, and to have these judges not beholden to an outside agency regarding ethical behavior is antithetical to a corruption free government. This current status erodes if not completely destroys any credible authority or respect the supreme court has.
The theoretical ideal is that judges won't be intervened by anyone. (At least that's how it is phrased in my country). Congress thus has to select trustworthy judges, and is supposed to be able to write and block laws without going to the court. These two not being met are the problems that need to be fixed, in the classical sense. Now, if you say these are beyond fixing and the other governmental branches have to start checking the court, there'll probably arise a huge problem of how to establish the independence of judges.
Basically they will be officially political tools.
Understandable but at this stage they are political tools and have been so for decades. It is just now blatantly obvious and if that is going to be the case we need a new system in place to correct it or to mitigate them
Harvard degrees are ridiculously overvalued. I know a couple of legacy admission students. Neither of them were especially smart either before or after going to Harvard. Since then I realized that there are lots of below average people running around with Harvard degrees. Same thing is probably true for other Ivy schools.
Politics
Hot