• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

ChrisL68 said:
I think the history of case law is on the unconstitutional side.

And aside from that, it's a terrible idea. Other countries have tried it. It has proven to be a costly and inefficient way to raise taxes. It was be great for the cottage professional appraisal industry. The IRS will have to hire a bunch of experts to fight the multitude of highly judgmental cases that will surely go to litigation.
Click to expand...

Again, actual legal scholars disagree, but we won't find out anyway. The country will continue to go to shit.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Again, actual legal scholars disagree, but we won't find out anyway. The country will continue to go to shit.
Click to expand...
I've read most of the opinions in favor of the constitutionality. They basically say yeah there's precedence but it was biased. This goes against a multitude of specific indications and decisions where the courts have ruled that wealth taxes are direct taxes if they aren't transaction-based.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I've read most of the opinions in favor of the constitutionality. They basically say yeah there's precedence but it was biased. This goes against a multitude of specific indications and decisions where the courts have ruled that wealth taxes are direct taxes if they aren't transaction-based.
Click to expand...

The court has never directly addressed the specific issue. The precednt that leads to the notion that this may be unconstitutional stem from one case in the1800s that scholars think was wrongly decided. I haven't looked at this lately but I can dig it up. There should be no limit on Congress's power to tax.
 
It’s interesting how you guys are arguing about this as if the tax will ever see the light of day. This will never get passed in a Warren presidency, it’s a political tactic to get the attention of the middle and lower classes that are pissed at the rich during the campaign.
 
Shooshmoo said:
The court has never directly addressed the specific issue. The precednt that leads to the notion that this may be unconstitutional stem from one case in the1800s that scholars think was wrongly decided. I haven't looked at this lately but I can dig it up. There should be no limit on Congress's power to tax.
Click to expand...
The entire basis as to why the estate tax was constitutional was that it wasn't a direct wealth tax but a transaction tax instead. It is true that what is constitutional is whatever the Supreme Court decides but if you want to honestly look at the precedence in this matter I think it's pretty clear
 
birdman said:
It’s interesting how you guys are arguing about this as if the tax will ever see the light of day. This will never get passed in a Warren presidency, it’s a political tactic to get the attention of the middle and lower classes that are pissed at the rich during the campaign.
Click to expand...
Populist demagoguery I agree
 
ChrisL68 said:
The entire basis as to why the estate tax was constitutional was that it wasn't a direct wealth tax but a transaction tax instead. It is true that what is constitutional is whatever the Supreme Court decides but if you want to honestly look at the precedence in this matter I think it's pretty clear
Click to expand...

http://https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-warren-wealth-tax-20190125-story.html%3foutputType=amp

It's far from clear. Good article by a Yale professor linked in the attached.
 
And their argument is basically to ignore precedence as "flawed conventional wisdom"
 
PhDeac said:
Hope the DNC is watching the NBA Draft Lottery. They definitely should schedule a prime time event to select who participated in which debate. It should not be top 10 and next 10 in the polls. Or some configuration to get specific matchups.
Click to expand...

Wut?
 
How do you think they should choose who is in which debate?
 
birdman said:
It’s interesting how you guys are arguing about this as if the tax will ever see the light of day. This will never get passed in a Warren presidency, it’s a political tactic to get the attention of the middle and lower classes that are pissed at the rich during the campaign.
Click to expand...

AI think we've both already said it won't see the light of day. Not the point.
 
Shooshmoo said:
AI think we've both already said it won't see the light of day. Not the point.
Click to expand...

Ok, but the point of Warren’s proposal is to start talking about the tax system and especially to talk about how the rich, like Donald Trump, don’t pay their “fair share”. The details and legality of her proposal are irrelevant, it about highlighting Trump’s taxes.
 
ChrisL68 said:
And their argument is basically to ignore precedence as "flawed conventional wisdom"
Click to expand...

You didn't read that in 5 minutes. The argument is actually that the 1895 Pollock case has been undermined by a string of subsequent Supreme Court decisions that use a more narrow definition of Direct Tax (and the court used a more narrow definion before Pollock), including a 1983 case that said Congress' power to tax is virtually without limitation.
 
Shooshmoo said:
You didn't read that in 5 minutes. The argument is actually that the 1895 Pollock case has been undermined by a string of subsequent Supreme Court decisions that use a more narrow definition of Direct Tax (and the court used a more narrow definion before Pollock), including a 1983 case that said Congress' power to tax is virtually without limitation.
Click to expand...

The court ruling in 1983 regarded the geographic exclusion of certain Alaskan oils from excise taxes. Excise taxes are by their nature indirect taxes on transactions. The question there is whether this exclusion violated the uniformity clause. It had nothing to do with the definition of what was a direct tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top