Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(55,396 posts)
5. i like the idea in theory, and talking about it might be good, but it's not constitutional.
Thu Jan 24, 2019, 08:04 PM
Jan 2019

and even if we somehow could muster a majority in both houses and have a president who would sign it, we'd never get a constitutional amendment ratified to allow it.

taxes essentially need to be levied on a per capita basis, except for the income tax, which only became possible after its own constitutional amendment was ratified.

"wealth" is neither income not per capita, so i don't see how it's constitutional.

in theory, though, i like the idea of a wealth tax, in fact, in lieu of an income tax entirely. encourage economic activity but discourage hoarding of assets. the only downside is that income is much easier to detect because someone else has an incentive to report. it's much easier to hide wealth.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Elizabeth Warren»ELIZABETH WARREN PROPOSES...»Reply #5