34.6 F
Chicago
Saturday, February 4, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsElizabeth Warren’s ‘Wealth Tax’ Is Unconstitutional

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Wealth Tax’ Is Unconstitutional

Date:

spot_img

Elizabeth-warren-capitol-hill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax is either unconstitutional or regressive. Jibran Khan writes:

Because a direct tax must be “apportioned among the several States” according to “the Census or Enumeration herein”, the total revenue of the tax would have to be decided beforehand by the government, and then apportioned to each state by population, not by any wealth-related measure. So if a state contains 10 percent of the national population, it will pay 10 percent of the tax, regardless of wealth.

As Matthew Franck pointed out on Bench Memos in 2012 (emphasis added):

It gets worse. Take two states close to one another in size. Maryland, in the 2010 census, had 5,773,552 people, or 1.87% of the population, while Missouri had 5,988,927 people, or 1.93% of the nation. Pretty close, right? Missouri residents, collectively, would have to pay more than Marylanders under Altman’s wealth tax. But according to the “Quick Facts” at the Census Bureau, Maryland in 2010 was a much wealthier state than Missouri. Incomes were higher in Maryland, with $34,849 per capita, as against $24,724 in Missouri, and $70,647 median household income in Maryland as against $46,262 in Missouri.

What about the wealth Altman wants to tax? Take real estate. Home ownership rates were about the same (69% in Maryland, 70% in Missouri), but housing values were $329,400 in Maryland, and only $137,700 in Missouri. Yet according to the constitutionally required formula, Missourians collectively will have to pay about the same, or a little more, in federal wealth tax, than Marylanders. This means that the tax rates on assessed values of property will have to be much, much higher in Missouri than in Maryland, in order to raise the same quantity of revenue.

Not only would this tax system put a relatively heavy burden on poor states, the fact that tax incidence is determined by population means that the wealthy can move their assets to states with different tax burdens.

[Jibran Khan, “Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Wealth Tax’ Is Unconstitutional,” National Review, January 24]

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

5 COMMENTS

  1. She would never let the truth or the law get in the way of her desired policies…. she is a devotee of Machiavelli.
    Machiavelli taught, anything you may have to do to achieve your goals is okay… morality doesn’t exist in her “Pocahontas” world.

  2. If it were passed it would depend on who was on the Supreme Court. The Constitution means very little compared to the personal opinions of SCOTUS. That is particularly true when liberals are on the Court.
    To them the law is a mere inconvenience to be circumvented when it suits them.
    That is the reality.

  3. Just like conservatives to bring a knife to a gun fight.
    “It’s unconstitutional!!!”
    Why on earth do you think leftist nihilists and the third world peoples they bring in would give a rats rear end about the Constitution?
    No wonder we’re screwed.