Democrats move to finalize new 'billionaire' tax proposal, targeting 700 wealthiest Americans as key

[ShazamIam]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Washington post via msn (no paywall)

The entire address did not copy into the space allowed
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-move-to-finalize-new-billionaire-tax-proposal-targeting-700-wealthiest-americans-as-key-source-of-revenue-for-spending-plan/ar-AAPQhXi?ocid=uxbndlbing

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-move-to-finalize-new-billionaire-tax-proposal-targeting-700-wealthiest-americans-as-key-source-of-revenue-for-spending-plan/ar-AAPQhXi?ocid=uxbndlbing

---

These are the people who have been buying our anti-democratic government and policies while tax money protected their multinational investments via the U.S. Military power and support via the tax supported State Department and around the world embassies and patent enforcement. They have had a free ride on the middle and upper middle class taxpayers.

Senior Democrats are preparing a sweeping new tax plan that would aim to raise hundreds of billions of dollars from the fortunes of America’s roughly 700 billionaires, an abrupt shift in the party’s approach to funding a large expansion of the safety net.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, questions Chris Magnus as he appears before a Senate Finance Committee hearing to consider his nomination to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 19, 2021. Rod Lamkey/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
But even after Democrats seized control of the White House and Congress, they haven’t been able to fully coalesce around a tax and spending plan, with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) expressing opposition to higher tax rates.

Now, an unexpected compromise appears to be emerging on the billionaire tax proposal. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is drafting the plan, and senior Biden officials and other senior Democrats are cautiously optimistic that Sinema and other centrist lawmakers will support the effort, according to interviews with three congressional aides and two administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.

It is uncertain whether the plan will be backed by every Senate Democrat and almost every House Democrat, the necessary threshold for its passage.

[napi21]

1. My fingers are crossed that it finally passes, not only for President Biden, but for ALL OF

US. I'll be interested to see what the change was that broke the objections.

[ShazamIam]

2. The public is behind it, if only the media will support it and that is not likely but not impossible

[AZLD4Candidate]

4. The public may be behind it, but don't underestmate 700 billionaires and their campaign

contributions. One billionaire's checkbook has a louder voice than a hundred million American voices.

[ShazamIam]

5. Along with their propaganda network that reaches every city, town and village in the nation.

[FoxNewsSucks]

7. The billionaires own the media

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. I think it's likely to pass, the question is, will it withstand certain court challenges

Wealth taxes are very tricky constitutionally.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. If they do it in terms of changing the tax code

including closing loopholes, then it should pass muster.

It can be included as one of the reconciliation types ("revenue" - that type having been used previously in 2017 to do the GOP's tax cuts for the wealthy reconciliation package), and can be standalone or in combination with the current reconciliation that has focused on a different type ("spending" ).

Each of the 3 types (including a 3rd - "debt ceiling" ) can only be used once in a fiscal year because it basically provides instructions for that fiscal year's budget (with all the regular budgetary stuff appended in there), and directs what spending (via appropriations bills) will need to occur to fulfill that budget.

[manicdem]

8. Constitutional

What the poster above you meant is a wealth tax constitutional. There is a lot of debate on the constitutionality of a wealth tax, and it will likely be struck down. The 16th amendment which allowed for income taxes, only applies to income.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. I may be wrong

but I am guessing that "wealth tax" is nothing more than a "media" / "messaging" term. Essentially a slogan, like "millionaires and billionaires".

If you read the OP article (and I have access to the WaPo version that the OP source link basically reproduces), it's mainly how they want to change the tax codes to narrow certain write-offs & exemptions for those making above a certain income.

For example, there was discussion about the inheritance transfers (and how that is mostly exempt) and also discussion of using the "appreciation" of certain assets like real estate, to get a fairer value for tax assessment (although there was a balance option of allowing for deductions for losses).

And with respect to taxes, one might not necessarily limit it to the 16th Amendment. I.e., you can go all the way back before any Amendments were passed, let alone the 16th -

Article I

(snip)

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[MichMan]

11. Why was the 16th ever needed then?

Someone must have thought it was necessary

[BumRushDaShow]

12. It came about

as a result of cases that assumed that Congressional taxing authority had to rely on "apportionment" (by population), based on the earlier clause that declared that that non-whites (non-European-descended slaves and indigenous peoples) were "3/5ths" of a person (for tax purposes). I.e., the slave-holding states would end up bearing a burden if they considered certain human beings actual "whole persons" for population and "property tax" purposes, when it came to application of Article I, Sect. 8.

Article I

(snip)

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

With the 14th Amendment suddenly restoring the removed 2/5 of certain impacted people to make them "whole", the apportionment issue again reared it's "ugly head", with the government needing a way to directly target a new class of people (the various "barons" who were proliferating during the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th) who were being excluded from taxation due to a now-magnified "apportionment" assumption ("requirement" ).

The 16th Amendment became the attempt to toss out the "apportionment" piece, among other things, for certain taxes, and define "direct tax" vs "indirect tax" when it came to taxation.

16th Amendment

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

Some of the legal arguments out there point to the extremes of either forcing the "must use the apportionment clause" for any type of Congressional tax, including certain income taxes vs completely ignoring apportionment (as a now-deprecated artifact of history), when it comes to Congress' broad taxing authority.

There is an interesting paper on this here (PDF) - https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RI_Wealth-Tax-Constitutionality-Brief-202102-2.pdf

As I noted in my earlier response, the term "wealth tax" seems more jargon because it can be effectuated by changing the existing tax code. The "problem" is how complex the tax code is at this point, and whether someone is up to really getting into the weeds of carving out certain exemptions and making changes to basically accomplish what would amount to unveiling "hidden" sources of income.

And inevitably, every time we reach this point, someone will toss out the simplistic - "Well then just do a flat tax!!!1!!11!!!!!" and away we go.

I.e., "wealth is a nebulous thing that is sitting there disconnected from (in terms of taxation focus), but inherently linked to actual (but unrealized) "income". And that is because some of it has been considered/accepted as being an "asset" that can be used to borrow against.

So as a simplistic example, if I own a few original Rembrandts worth millions, I could conceivably be loaned money against the "market value" (or some other derived value) of those paintings. But having ownership of them incurs no tax liability as property (until/unless they are sold, triggering capital gains), and that is where the 16th Amendment is silent.

Thus... some argue that given Congress' "broad taxing authority", anything not spelled out in the 16th Amendment, could fall back to Article I. Sect. 8, but not with the "strict" interpretation of "requiring apportionment" as denoted in Article I. Sect. 2, but some "middling" interpretation of that clause because the original apportionment clause is now deprecated, but may still have limited validity in certain circumstances.

And of course this would be something that would be argued in the courts. In fact, this article mentioned some of the comments that CJ John Roberts made in his opinion with respect to Congress' taxing authority when it came to the ACA (and it apparently even touched on his thoughts about the famous "Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company" case that prompted the 16th Amendment).

One might attempt to argue that micromanaging the types of things that "should" require "apportionment", is ridiculous in certain circumstances, as was referenced regarding past SCOTUS rulings on the "carriage tax" not needing "apportionment" to enact (and could thus be lumped in as an "indirect tax" ).

[myohmy2]

10. oh boy...

...the billionaires are going to be pissed...

...how will they ever become trillionaires?

...I'm worried...

[Omaha Steve]

13. After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING

This story is analysis.

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.