On 3/10/2021 1:50 PM, John Levine wrote:

In article <XnsACE953C07B83Cspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all
the states have?

Several important ways.

All property ownership is registered, so there's no problem finding the owner.

Property by its nature is impossible to conceal.

Property taxes are levied by states and their subdivisions, not the federal government.

Re the constitutional question, there is a very strong argument that it is fine and the
literal reading of the direct tax clause is wrong.

There was a direct wealth tax on carriages in the late 1700s which the Supreme Court upheld
in 1796, when the people who wrote the Constitution were still around to explain what they meant.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

There is an additional Supreme case: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust
Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), The majority opinion held that a federal
tax on income derived from property was unconstitutional when it was not apportioned among the states according to representation in the United
States House of Representatives.

From the opinion:

"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real
estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of
real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the
income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of
1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution,
and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned
according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire
scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid."

So tax on wages was OK but a tax on rent, interest, and dividends was a
direct tax. This ruling was voided by the 16th amendment.

The Supreme Court has allowed several taxes like the estate tax and
carriage tax by interpreting them as fees. A wealth tax would obviously
get to the Supreme Court and we can only guess as how it would rule.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <s2bgnv$soc$1@dont-email.me>, Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote: >There is an additional Supreme case: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust >Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), The majority opinion held that a federal

tax on income derived from property was unconstitutional when it was not >apportioned among the states according to representation in the United
States House of Representatives.

Indeed, but Pollock was an outlier, and is widely considered to have been wrongly decided by an extremely
right wing court.

In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., in 1916, the court said the
"Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply
prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation
possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the
category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., in 1926, the court said, "It was not
the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject
within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all
incomes."

I agree it's anyone's guess what the current hyper-politicised court would say.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/10/2021 12:18 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all
the states have? Property tax is a wealth tax, and it is taxed on its
value every year even if the owner doesn't earn a penny.

That's the point; that it basically IS the same (it taxes a thing,
instead of an(a trans)action.) But the constitution restricts what types
of taxes can be levied by the federal government, where-as it does not
control what taxes can be levied by the states/local governments. So the question is (and not saying what I would consider the answer or be or if
I agree with the tax or not. I did say it *might* not be constitutional
but I haven't really given it much thought) is "can the federal
government levy what is basically a property tax without an amendment
allowing it?" They couldn't do an income tax without it but they can do gift/inheritance taxes. So what about a property tax (by any other name?)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/10/2021 3:50 PM, John Levine wrote:

In article <XnsACE953C07B83Cspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all
the states have?

Several important ways.

All property ownership is registered, so there's no problem finding the owner.

Property by its nature is impossible to conceal.

Property taxes are levied by states and their subdivisions, not the federal government.

Re the constitutional question, there is a very strong argument that it is fine and the
literal reading of the direct tax clause is wrong.

There was a direct wealth tax on carriages in the late 1700s which the Supreme Court upheld
in 1796, when the people who wrote the Constitution were still around to explain what they meant.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

I just had a thought. What if all the states agreed (like that'd ever
happen but...... just work with me on this) to impose a state property
tax and then simply "gift" the money to the Federal government? Doesn't
seem like there'd be any way of stopping it as states can pretty much
tax just about anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

I just had a thought. What if all the states agreed (like that'd
ever happen but...... just work with me on this) to impose a state
property tax and then simply "gift" the money to the Federal
government? Doesn't seem like there'd be any way of stopping it as
states can pretty much tax just about anything.

Actually the states have all agreed (well, not 100% but close) to codes developed by the Uniform Codes Commission. There's the Uniform
Commercial Code and Uniform Probate Code, among others. There's no
reason (technically) they couldn't agree on something like this.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:s2go6k$tqr$2@dont-email.me...

On 3/10/2021 3:50 PM, John Levine wrote:

In article <XnsACE953C07B83Cspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all
the states have?

Several important ways.

All property ownership is registered, so there's no problem finding the
owner.

Property by its nature is impossible to conceal.

Property taxes are levied by states and their subdivisions, not the
federal government.

Re the constitutional question, there is a very strong argument that it
is fine and the
literal reading of the direct tax clause is wrong.

There was a direct wealth tax on carriages in the late 1700s which the
Supreme Court upheld
in 1796, when the people who wrote the Constitution were still around to
explain what they meant.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

I just had a thought. What if all the states agreed (like that'd ever
happen but...... just work with me on this) to impose a state property tax >and then simply "gift" the money to the Federal government? Doesn't seem
like there'd be any way of stopping it as states can pretty much tax just >about anything.

Of course they could do it, and no one would stop them. But what would
their motivation be? States are run by elected officials, and voters tend
to vote for people who serve their interests. It's hard to imagine the
voters of any state possibly agreeing to this, since they would get no
direct benefit. Voters put up with property tax laws, in part, because they tend to fund state activities like education, which benefits the citizens of the state. I can't see voters in any state ever agreeing to do something
like this to fund the federal government. Besides, it's usually the other
way around - states try to get help from the feds and not vice versa.
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/2021 1:42 PM, Rick wrote:

"Mike Anderson"  wrote in message news:s2go6k$tqr$2@dont-email.me...

On 3/10/2021 3:50 PM, John Levine wrote:

In article <XnsACE953C07B83Cspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all >>>> the states have?

Several important ways.

All property ownership is registered, so there's no problem finding
the owner.

Property by its nature is impossible to conceal.

Property taxes are levied by states and their subdivisions, not the
federal government.

Re the constitutional question, there is a very strong argument that
it is fine and the
literal reading of the direct tax clause is wrong.

There was a direct wealth tax on carriages in the late 1700s which
the Supreme Court upheld
in 1796, when the people who wrote the Constitution were still around
to explain what they meant.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

I just had a thought. What if all the states agreed (like that'd ever
happen but...... just work with me on this) to impose a state property
tax and then simply "gift" the money to the Federal government?
Doesn't seem like there'd be any way of stopping it as states can
pretty much tax just about anything.

Of course they could do it, and no one would stop them.  But what would their motivation be?  States are run by elected officials, and voters
tend to vote for people who serve their interests.  It's hard to imagine
the voters of any state possibly agreeing to this, since they would get
no direct benefit.  Voters put up with property tax laws, in part,
because they tend to fund state activities like education, which
benefits the citizens of the state.  I can't see voters in any state
ever agreeing to do something like this to fund the federal government. Besides, it's usually the other way around - states try to get help from
the feds and not vice versa.
--

Assume a state collects $X in a wealth tax and sends it to the feds and
that state is going to receive $Y in benefits from the feds,

Unless $Y is greater than $X that state is not going to do it. It would
just be easier for the state to collect the wealth tax and spend it on
their own citizens and ignore the feds.

The congress critters are trying to reelected and they are all trying to
show how much federal money they bring into their district/state.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/2021 3:42 PM, Rick wrote:

"Mike Anderson"  wrote in message news:s2go6k$tqr$2@dont-email.me...

On 3/10/2021 3:50 PM, John Levine wrote:

In article <XnsACE953C07B83Cspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

Instead of taxing a transaction (aka inheritance or gift) or
taxing income (and allowing offsets to that income), the proposed
wealth tax would tax assets (like a property tax) and thus may
very well NOT be constitutional without an amendment.

How is a wealth tax different from property tax, which many if not all >>>> the states have?

Several important ways.

All property ownership is registered, so there's no problem finding
the owner.

Property by its nature is impossible to conceal.

Property taxes are levied by states and their subdivisions, not the
federal government.

Re the constitutional question, there is a very strong argument that
it is fine and the
literal reading of the direct tax clause is wrong.

There was a direct wealth tax on carriages in the late 1700s which
the Supreme Court upheld
in 1796, when the people who wrote the Constitution were still around
to explain what they meant.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

I just had a thought. What if all the states agreed (like that'd ever
happen but...... just work with me on this) to impose a state property
tax and then simply "gift" the money to the Federal government?
Doesn't seem like there'd be any way of stopping it as states can
pretty much tax just about anything.

Of course they could do it, and no one would stop them.  But what would their motivation be?  States are run by elected officials, and voters
tend to vote for people who serve their interests.  It's hard to imagine
the voters of any state possibly agreeing to this, since they would get
no direct benefit.  Voters put up with property tax laws, in part,
because they tend to fund state activities like education, which
benefits the citizens of the state.  I can't see voters in any state
ever agreeing to do something like this to fund the federal government. Besides, it's usually the other way around - states try to get help from
the feds and not vice versa.

As I indicated, I didn't think it was LIKELY to happen (just like it's
not LIKELY for a presidential candidate to win every single state.) I
was just wondering if anyone saw any reason that it couldn't be done
(basically the whole "can you/can I?" vs "will you/may I?")

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)