2026 Mid-Term Elections

[TomC]

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

Probably because the 16th Amendment talks about taxing income.

Oh, so now we’re s’posed to abide by the dumb old constitution?
I thought Trump fixed it so now it’s up to The President! I’m sure he will pass a wealth tax - he can afford it because he works so hard.

That's kinda what I was thinking.
Here in modern America, Trumpistan, appealing to the US Constitution is for losers and whiners. Buy your own scotus.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

Probably because the 16th Amendment talks about taxing income.

Oh, so now we’re s’posed to abide by the dumb old constitution?
I thought Trump fixed it so now it’s up to The President! I’m sure he will pass a wealth tax - he can afford it because he works so hard.

Not if he values remaining in office he won’t.

The 16th amendment gives provisions for a federal income tax. It dues not prohibit other taxes

 

[Harry Bosch]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government.

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

I would say the best way to "tax wealth" would likely be trust busting. But consolidation has gone too far at this point.

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

We used to have wealth tax which gradually morphed into taxes on holdings that the middle class is likely to have, such as property taxes. As wealth tax gradually was whittled away, wealth inequality grew

America Used to Have a Wealth Tax: The Forgotten History of the General Property Tax

Over time, broad wealth taxes were whittled away to become the narrower property taxes we have today. These selective wealth taxes apply to the kinds of wealth that make up a large share of middle-class families’ net worth (like homes and cars), but usually exempt most of the net worth of the...

itep.org

Our current system of selective wealth taxation through the property tax is largely neglecting—and in some ways even worsening—these problems. Data from the Federal Reserve indicate that the bottom 90 percent of families have more than half of their net worth tied up in real estate, whereas the top 1 percent have just 13 percent of their wealth in real estate. A similar pattern is present across race and ethnic groups: white families hold just 27 percent of their wealth in real estate while Black and Hispanic families hold 40 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

At the same time, real estate has also been declining as a share of total net worth, meaning that the narrow property taxes we have on the books today apply to a shrinking share of overall wealth.

In other words, wealthy families—particularly wealthy white families—have a far lower share of their net worth subject to property taxation than other groups. They also have a lower share of their wealth being taxed today than they did just a few decades ago, as intangible assets have grown in prominence. Given our nation’s high level of inequality, and the unequal opportunities it affords based on race and class, a return to a broader system of wealth taxation is worth a closer look.

Well, it's my understanding that most states have a property tax. I favor the states having it. The federal government is backing off sending tax dollars to the states for health care, housing and schools. Let the states have property taxes. State taxes goes toward schools, police, fire and other necessary expenses. Federal taxes are going to the defense and fancy ball rooms.

 

[Derec]

I'd say detecting gravitational waves which are about 1/1000 the size of an atom's nucleus probably is harder than updating tax code with the changing manner of obscene wealth.

The former is just a scientific and engineering problem.
The latter would require a constitutional amendment, and would cause chaos on the stock market which is why it would be nigh impossible to get sufficient legislative support.

So, that isn't viable. What is? What sort of metric can be created that taxes stockholder wealth in the tens of billions?

Tax actual income more, instead of Schnappsideen of wealth taxes, especially confiscatory wealth taxies Toni and Elixir are fantasizing about.

So, is this about proving Toni wrong and scoring points or considering whether it is possible to tax uber-wealth such as insane amounts of stockholder wealth and having a conversation?

Of course it is possible. Many disastrous things are possible.
But forcing people to sell even 5% of the stake in their companies every year would be bad for the economy.

It would be much better to focus on income, not wealth, even if latter plays well on the campaign trail.

 

[Derec]

This is not a Piker thread. It's about the mid-term elections.

And he has a big influence on the elections, whether you want to admit it or not.

Kegsbreath has more impact to the topic.

If he did, you would not just be offering him as whataboutism to deflect from Piker's pernicious influence.

 

[laughing dog]

This is not a Piker thread. It's about the mid-term elections.

And he has a big influence on the elections, whether you want to admit it or not.

What is your evidence from elections?

 

[Toni]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government.

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

I would say the best way to "tax wealth" would likely be trust busting. But consolidation has gone too far at this point.

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

We used to have wealth tax which gradually morphed into taxes on holdings that the middle class is likely to have, such as property taxes. As wealth tax gradually was whittled away, wealth inequality grew

America Used to Have a Wealth Tax: The Forgotten History of the General Property Tax

Over time, broad wealth taxes were whittled away to become the narrower property taxes we have today. These selective wealth taxes apply to the kinds of wealth that make up a large share of middle-class families’ net worth (like homes and cars), but usually exempt most of the net worth of the...

itep.org

Our current system of selective wealth taxation through the property tax is largely neglecting—and in some ways even worsening—these problems. Data from the Federal Reserve indicate that the bottom 90 percent of families have more than half of their net worth tied up in real estate, whereas the top 1 percent have just 13 percent of their wealth in real estate. A similar pattern is present across race and ethnic groups: white families hold just 27 percent of their wealth in real estate while Black and Hispanic families hold 40 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

At the same time, real estate has also been declining as a share of total net worth, meaning that the narrow property taxes we have on the books today apply to a shrinking share of overall wealth.

In other words, wealthy families—particularly wealthy white families—have a far lower share of their net worth subject to property taxation than other groups. They also have a lower share of their wealth being taxed today than they did just a few decades ago, as intangible assets have grown in prominence. Given our nation’s high level of inequality, and the unequal opportunities it affords based on race and class, a return to a broader system of wealth taxation is worth a closer look.

Well, it's my understanding that most states have a property tax. I favor the states having it. The federal government is backing off sending tax dollars to the states for health care, housing and schools. Let the states have property taxes. State taxes goes toward schools, police, fire and other necessary expenses. Federal taxes are going to the defense and fancy ball rooms.

In every state where I have lived, property taxes are collected locally and generally fund local, municipal and school districts. Property taxes are assessed on real estate, both commercial and residential plus farmland with at least some states assessing primary residences at a different, lower rate than say, vacation homes.

AFAIK there is no state wide property tax assessed anywhere in the US. Note: I am not an accountant.

Roughly, property taxes are a kind of wealth tax if it is indeed true that wealthier people own more expensive homes, Abd so pay more in property taxes than middle income people. Of course, those unable to purchase a home pay property tax assessed anywhere part of their rent.

One way this can be quite unfair is taxing farmland. Farmer A may have say, 100 acres of land valued at $500K from which he might realize ( if he is lucky in many places) $30K/year in profit. Suppose farmer B down the road sells his 100acres to a developer for $1M. His neighbor, the original farmer, most likely will see his property value increase dramatically but not his income. The county is happy enough because that 100 acres will soon become 400 homes, valued at at least $400K each. The same parcel of land can now be taxed on an assessed value of $160M ( I’m ignoring the costs to connect to water and utilities, etc. for simplicity).

Or perhaps it just becomes warehouses and fulfillment centers as is the case of the county I grew up in. Or data centers. Numbers are different but effects are the same,

Everybody’s happy except poor farmer A who now has to compete with a lot of additional traffic who don’t like slowing down for farm equipment and neighbors who complain about the smell of manure. And come up with more money for property taxes.

Of course, eventually there is very little arable land left on which to raise food everyone needs to eat, plus it must be transported further and drive up costs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is not a Piker thread. It's about the mid-term elections.

And he has a big influence on the elections, whether you want to admit it or not.

Kegsbreath has more impact to the topic.

If he did, you would not just be offering him as whataboutism to deflect from Piker's pernicious influence.

Piker doesn't have a huge effect on elections. He's your boogeyman. Kegsbreath's war is effecting the economy which is huge and with rumors the military will be involved in the election, even if not, it is triggering to people. So, overall, the Kegsbreath effect is more global to the US than some "influencer" allegedly helping one candidate and it is more intense. To add--it's already been mentioned influencers inflate their numbers.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Inasmuch as property taxes are essentially wealth taxes (albeit only on a fraction of one's wealth) I doubt they're unconstitutional at the state level...

My home is a substantial fraction of my “wealth”, and it is unrealized. I don’t have access to its value unless I sell, or take a loan against it I guess. But I still pay a property tax.

 

[laughing dog]

I wonder if some of these “influencers “ are “barometers”: reflectors tastes/views rather than changing them.

 

[ZiprHead]

In every state where I have lived, property taxes are collected locally and generally fund local, municipal and school districts. Property taxes are assessed on real estate, both commercial and residential plus farmland with at least some states assessing primary residences at a different, lower rate than say, vacation homes.

AFAIK there is no state wide property tax assessed anywhere in the US. Note: I am not an accountant.

Roughly, property taxes are a kind of wealth tax if it is indeed true that wealthier people own more expensive homes, Abd so pay more in property taxes than middle income people. Of course, those unable to purchase a home pay property tax assessed anywhere part of their rent.

We have an idiot here running for governor who wants to eliminate property taxes. Huge benefit to the wealthy. "Hillsdale educated conservative farm boy."

 

[Derec]

I don’t recall suggesting a particular level.

You said that "billionaires" should be "eliminated". That is a "particular level".

These are your words from upthread:

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

[emphasis added]

I have zero sympathy for oligarchs being ‘forced to sell’ assets to meet tax obligations. Happens to mere mortals all the time.

If they have to sell some of their holdings for living expenses or taxes, that is one thing. Bezos already does that. It is quite another to tax the net worth directly. And no, that does not happen to "mere mortals" either - they don't get taxed on the value of their mutual funds and stock portfolios.

Frankly a handful of people in the US hold more wealth than the combined least weary 90% of the US population.

[citation needed]

Which is a problem for a couple reasons:
1. They pay a disproportionately small income tax, both personal and corporate.

Actually, the wealthy pay a disproportionally high share of total federal income taxes.

2. They have an outsized influence on everything in our society, from legislation to markets.

That is true. Doesn't mean they should be punished for it. There are other groups that also have an outsized influence without being demonized for it.

3. They are literally above the law. That’s not supposed to happen in the US.

That is not true. They are not "literally above the law".

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t recall suggesting a particular level.

You said that "billionaires" should be "eliminated". That is a "particular level".

I have zero sympathy for oligarchs being ‘forced to sell’ assets to meet tax obligations. Happens to mere mortals all the time.

If they have to sell some of their holdings for living expenses or taxes, that is one thing. Bezos already does that. It is quite another to tax the net worth directly. And no, that does not happen to "mere mortals" either - they don't get taxed on the value of their mutual funds and stock portfolios.

Frankly a handful of people in the US hold more wealth than the combined least weary 90% of the US population.

[citation needed]

Which is a problem for a couple reasons:
1. They pay a disproportionately small income tax, both personal and corporate.

Actually, the wealthy pay a disproportionally high share of total federal income taxes.

2. They have an outsized influence on everything in our society, from legislation to markets.

That is true. Doesn't mean they should be punished for it. There are other groups that also have an outsized influence without being demonized for it.

3. They are literally above the law. That’s not supposed to happen in the US.

That is not true. They are not "literally above the law".

I’ve always found the use of share of federal income taxes paid by income class to be misleading because it ignores FICA taxes which are based on income up to a point. If one adds in the estimated shifting back of the employer’s share of FICA as well, I’d expect a significant lower tax burden on the high earners. The Tax Foundation further skews the numbers by using adjusted gross income as the divisor not actual income.

Of course, a progressive tax system should result in higher earners having a larger share of taxes paid because that is the point of progressive taxes. By construction, a progressive tax system “demonizes” higher earners. The policy issue is the degree of progressivity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it's my understanding that most states have a property tax. I favor the states having it.

Ohio is trying to do away with Property Taxes. Apparently people don't like local governments trying to pay for stuff that Capitol City has cut to the bone.

The federal government is backing off sending tax dollars to the states for health care, housing and schools. Let the states have property taxes. State taxes goes toward schools, police, fire and other necessary expenses. Federal taxes are going to the defense and fancy ball rooms.

This sounds great, in theory. But the same GOP austerity in DC was happening in all of states and counties they control. No one can afford anything without the Federal Government pumping in some dollars.

 

[Toni]

Higher earners profit more than lower earners for the system. They should pay their fair share.

 

[Tigers!]

OK, I give up, the system is corrupted and I have no idea what to do about it.

Same here. All the outrage over gerrymandering right now is understandable, but this has always been a corrosive problem. I have no other opinions on it because like the electoral college, it will never change barring a literal overthrow of the government.

I have the incredibly naive thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

I need to step back a little in considering all the furore in the US about gerrymandering.
1. Presumably states redistribution for their state election is done by the states themselves? What criteria is used when redistributing? Number of noses in an area? Colour of noses in an area? How the noses voted last time? Or others?
2. Who does the redistribution for the federal seats? The Feral govt or the states on the Feral's behalf?
3. What criteria is used when federal redistributing? Number of noses in an area? Colour of noses in an area? How the noses voted last time? Or others?
4. Do you have any independent bodies, state or Federal to oversee the redistribution? Or do the pollies do it for themselves?

Is there a concise, coherent account somewhere?

 

[Tigers!]

Higher earners profit more than lower earners for the system. They should pay their fair share.

Sounds good.
Though how to determine what is high and what is fair?
In Australia I have noticed that nearly all those who rabbit on about higher taxes for certain people are loathe to actually say what level the higher taxes should kick in. When pressed invariably it is just above what they are making or own. Funny about that.

 

[Tigers!]

As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Inasmuch as property taxes are essentially wealth taxes (albeit only on a fraction of one's wealth) I doubt they're unconstitutional at the state level...

My home is a substantial fraction of my “wealth”, and it is unrealized. I don’t have access to its value unless I sell, or take a loan against it I guess. But I still pay a property tax.

Whilst the situations are different in Australia if I simplify the constants my 'wealth' is tied up in 2 bundles - my house and my super(annaution).
The house is about 40% of my 'wealth' . My other assets shares, cars, bank accounts, house contents are insignificant.
Yet I cannot eat, nor pay a single bill with its value. It is indeed unrealised.
I have lived it for about 35 years now. With my wife for 31 years, Raised our daughter in it. I cannot put a $ value on it.
I built it myself and have laboured over it every since.
But many in Australia would consider me wealthy and an exploiter. Ripe to be plucked. They can go and get stuffed.

 

[Patooka]

OK, I give up, the system is corrupted and I have no idea what to do about it.

Same here. All the outrage over gerrymandering right now is understandable, but this has always been a corrosive problem. I have no other opinions on it because like the electoral college, it will never change barring a literal overthrow of the government.

I have the incredibly naive thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

I need to step back a little in considering all the furore in the US about gerrymandering.
1. Presumably states redistribution for their state election is done by the states themselves? What criteria is used when redistributing? Number of noses in an area? Colour of noses in an area? How the noses voted last time? Or others?
2. Who does the redistribution for the federal seats? The Feral govt or the states on the Feral's behalf?
3. What criteria is used when federal redistributing? Number of noses in an area? Colour of noses in an area? How the noses voted last time? Or others?
4. Do you have any independent bodies, state or Federal to oversee the redistribution? Or do the pollies do it for themselves?

Is there a concise, coherent account somewhere?

Yes.



EDIT: I forgot to add @Tigers! - the video is 9 years old and mentions the Voting Rights Act. That has been subtlely changed in the US very recently so that bit of the clip no longer applies.

 

[Toni]

Higher earners profit more than lower earners for the system. They should pay their fair share.

Sounds good.
Though how to determine what is high and what is fair?
In Australia I have noticed that nearly all those who rabbit on about higher taxes for certain people are loathe to actually say what level the higher taxes should kick in. When pressed invariably it is just above what they are making or own. Funny about that.

Sure, it’s easy to think someone else should pay more. I strongly believe in a progressive system of income tax, with lower limits but not upper limits. I also think that deductions should be carefully scrutinized. Our income prior to both our retirements was bordering on upper middle class. When we started out, we were raising kids on less than we paid in income taxes closer to the end of our working careers. While I marveled at the sums, I never begrudged a cent. Now, we are living on a very modest pension and SS plus the proceeds of our retirement savings, which, if we are modest in our expenditures, will allow us to live pretty much as we have been and should cover if one of us needs long term care. If we both do, it gets dicey. Probably we will be ok. Withdrawals from the account are heavily taxed. We still end up sending in more at tax time. While I wish it were less, just as I wish the utility bills were less or milk or bread were cheaper, I don’t begrudge a cent.

I don’t mind that lots of people want and get a grander life than I have. I mind that they begrudge every or any cent they do not personally control and direct and often seek to avoid paying what they well can afford with not a tiny hiccup to their own needs and wants and routines.