Paul L. CaronDean
Friday, January 25, 2019
By Paul Caron
Update: Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Warren’s Unconstitutional Wealth Tax
Tax | Permalink
Mr. Scorse, increasing marginal rates and the rate on capital; gains would be a tax on income, not wealth. Someone owning $100 million in tax-free bonds would be unaffected by your proposal. Moreover, the belief that a wealth tax is a direct tax is not confined to myself and the WSJ but I suspect is one shared by most tax scholars.
Posted by: guy helvering | Jan 30, 2019 8:30:48 AM
Someone should tell Pocahontas we already have a wealth tax.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 26, 2019 7:15:09 PM
Mr. Scorse, what good would achieving this progressive fantasy of 70% achieve? If you haven't noticed the majority of federal funding now comes from issuing Treasury debt. Debt has gone from roughly 8 trillion in 2008 to 21 trillion currently. According to some, we'll soon be knocking on the door of 30 trillion. Frankly, I think we should do away with the tax code. Who needs it?
Posted by: Dale Spradling | Jan 26, 2019 3:37:50 PM
"Undoubtedly unconstitutional"? So Mr. Helvering and the WSJ believe, and they're entitled. Here are a couple of suggestions that pass the constitutional test: Equal taxes on capital gains and ordinary income, and a hefty increase in the top marginal rate.
It doesn't have to reach AOC's 70%, but there's lots of room between the current top of 37% and that number.
Posted by: Gerald Scorse | Jan 26, 2019 4:55:20 AM
Professor Warren is desperately trying to distract attention from her bizarre claim to Native American status. A symbolic tax proposal is her latest effort.
Posted by: Mike Livingston | Jan 26, 2019 3:31:20 AM
Political posturing at its worst. Such a tax is undoubtedly unconstitutional, since it is an unapportioned direct tax.
Posted by: guy helvering | Jan 25, 2019 11:25:38 AM
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support TaxProf Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.