this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
382 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3893 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Moore v. United States have little basis in law — unless you think that a list of long-ago-discarded laissez-faire decisions from the early 20th century remain good law. And a decision favoring these plaintiffs could blow a huge hole in the federal budget. While no Warren-style wealth tax is on the books, the Moore plaintiffs do challenge an existing tax that is expected to raise $340 billion over the course of a decade.

But Republicans also hold six seats on the nation’s highest Court, so there is some risk that a majority of the justices will accept the plaintiffs’ dubious legal arguments. And if they do so, they could do considerable damage to the government’s ability to fund itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 101 points 9 months ago (17 children)

there's literally a constitutional amendment saying congress can issue taxes however they want. The supreme court is so full of its own shit they think they can rewrite every law they don't like.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Which amendment is that? Because the sixteenth amendment very specifically mentions taxes on income, not wealth.

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Article 1, section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises […]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Given that the 16th Amendment exists expressly in order to establish a federal income tax, it's probably safe to say that this has not been understood as an unlimited power of taxation.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company is the relevant SCOTUS case, if you're curious. The tl;dr is that Article I, Section 9:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

states that revenues raised by a "direct tax", which includes income taxes, from a given state must be proportional to that state's population relative to the rest of the country. Income isn't evenly distributed among the states, so income taxes violate this provision. That's why the 16th amendment specifically exempts income taxes from that requirement:

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

The basic idea was that, if Congress needed to raise a bunch of money for some large project, they can't go targeting specific states for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. added that the "Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." 240 U.S. 112 (1916).[30]

That effect was reaffirmed in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), in which the Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court concluded, "It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes."

The Sixteenth Amendment exists not because of the limitations imposed by Pollock v. Farmers, but because Congress was concerned that the Supreme Court might strike down further income tax laws even though they were within the powers conferred by Article 1. Congress thought the Supreme Court had gone too far (and they likely did) and wasn't sure how far they would go so they took it out of the Supreme Court's hands.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Funnily enough you're talking about circular logic. One is saying congress has the expressed right to tax and cannot be limited by the Supreme Court. Now you're saying the Supreme Court has already limited congresses power to tax..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Er, no?

I'm saying that the Constitution, Article I Section 9, imposes a limit on Congress's ability to issue taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment was passed to specifically exempt income taxes from that limit, which is what authorized the federal income tax. There is a very real legal argument that a wealth tax, which is a fundamentally different kind of tax, does not fall under the Sixteenth Amendment exemption and thus is constitutionally restricted.

I might not have explained that super clearly, so genuinely, feel free to ask if I was confusing at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Not an amendment.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)