How does Kamala Tax Gazillionaires ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpaer
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6
  • Views: 176
  • Politics 
mpaer

mpaer

Iconic Member
ZZL Supporter
Messages
1,467
Income tax doesn't move the needle much-since they have rinky dink incomes compared to their multibillion annual increase in " holdings"
Does she propose some kind of "Wealth tax" ????
 
She's talked about this throughout her campaign. From her campaign website:

"Unlike Donald Trump, Vice President Harris and Governor Walz are committed to ensuring no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes. They believe that we need to chart a New Way Forward by both making our tax system fairer and prioritizing investment and innovation. They will ensure the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share, so we can take action to build up the middle class while reducing the deficit. This includes rolling back Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, enacting a billionaire minimum tax, quadrupling the tax on stock buybacks, and other reforms to ensure the very wealthy are playing by the same rules as the middle class. Under her plan, the tax rate on long-term capital gains for those earning a million dollars a year or more will be 28 percent, because when the government encourages investment, it leads to broad-based economic growth and creates jobs, which makes our economy stronger."

Taxing unrealized gains for those earning at least a million dollars per year, along with a "billionaire minimum tax," is basically a wealth tax, though IMO an actual wealth tax could be simpler and less subject to shenanigans.
 
rodoheel said:
Taxing unrealized gains for those earning at least a million dollars per year is basically a wealth tax, though IMO an actual wealth tax could be simpler and less subject to shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Both unlikely to pass constitutional muster given the dicta about the realization requirement in SCOTUS's decision in Moore v. US this past term.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Both unlikely to pass constitutional muster given the dicta about the realization requirement in SCOTUS's decision in Moore v. US this past term.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that they basically dodged that issue in Moore with this FN:

"The Government argues that a gain does not need to be realized to constitute income under the Constitution. The Government contends that Eisner v. Macomber’s discussion of realization was dicta because the stock dividend did not represent any kind of economic gain (realized or unrealized) for the shareholders. The Government further contends that Eisner v. Macomber’s discussion of realization has, in any event, been abrogated by later decisions of this Court, such as Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461, 60 S.Ct. 631, 84 L.Ed. 864 (1940), Helvering v. Griffiths, 318 U.S. 371, 63 S.Ct. 636, 87 L.Ed. 843 (1943), and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483 (1955). Because the MRT taxes realized income—namely, income realized by the corporation and attributed to the shareholders—we do not address the Government's argument that a gain need not be realized to constitute income under the Constitution."

Though that does follow a sentence in the text where the majority characterized the Eisner decision in this way: "And the Court further stated that income requires realization." In any event you're likely right that the current conservative majority would find that realization is required for indirect taxation as income; it certainly appears that the liberals were thinking ahead on that issue because they expressly wrote about it in their dissenting and concurring opinions. But I would still pass it and let the Supremes declare it unconstitutional, if that's what they're gonna do.
 
rodoheel said:
It seems to me that they basically dodged that issue in Moore with this FN:

"The Government argues that a gain does not need to be realized to constitute income under the Constitution. The Government contends that Eisner v. Macomber’s discussion of realization was dicta because the stock dividend did not represent any kind of economic gain (realized or unrealized) for the shareholders. The Government further contends that Eisner v. Macomber’s discussion of realization has, in any event, been abrogated by later decisions of this Court, such as Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461, 60 S.Ct. 631, 84 L.Ed. 864 (1940), Helvering v. Griffiths, 318 U.S. 371, 63 S.Ct. 636, 87 L.Ed. 843 (1943), and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483 (1955). Because the MRT taxes realized income—namely, income realized by the corporation and attributed to the shareholders—we do not address the Government's argument that a gain need not be realized to constitute income under the Constitution."

Though that does follow a sentence in the text where the majority characterized the Eisner decision in this way: "And the Court further stated that income requires realization." In any event you're likely right that the current conservative majority would find that realization is required for indirect taxation as income; it certainly appears that the liberals were thinking ahead on that issue because they expressly wrote about it in their dissenting and concurring opinions. But I would still pass it and let the Supremes declare it unconstitutional, if that's what they're gonna do.
Click to expand...
They definitely dodged the big question - whether realization is required by the 16th Amendment. Like you excerpted, they held there was realization in Moore, so they didn't need to reach the question of whether unrealized income could be taxed. But the conservatives, unsurprisingly, were hostile to the idea - I believe 4 outright said they would hold realization is required.

This case was always a proxy fight over a future wealth tax. I was surprised SCOTUS took it up. It wasn't a matter of setting lower courts straight - the district court, appeals court, and SCOTUS all ruled the same way, that the MRT was constitutional. Ruling otherwise (that realization is required and there was no realization here) would have blown up significant parts of the tax code to the serious detriment of the fisc. The case was a shot across the bow.
 
With House and Senate so evenly split, no Democrat will be able to make a substantial change in US taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top