A SCOTUS case aiming to protect rich people from taxes could lead to chaos for the federal government’s finances.

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.

  • @SCB@lemmy.world
    20•1 year ago

    So I dug in on this and the batshit thing here is they have a strong enough case to absolutely win with the current court. “Strong” here meaning “believable enough for this court to bullshit.”

    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.

    That’s the 16th amendment, with the relevant part bolded. The argument is that wealth is not income, and thus this falls back on Article 1 section 9 which states

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

    Effectively they’re claiming that wealth taxes are direct taxes (this is another shaky part, legally, and the part referenced in Moore).

    Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. Found that a tax on income which was derived from property (rent, dividends, interest, etc.) was effectively a tax on the property, and so was a direct tax.

    This was the case that set up for the passing of the 16th amendment, hence the shaky ground.

    Wealth is property, holdings, capital, and money - thus by a… Let’s call is “selective” view of cases like Pollock, the SCOTUS has reasonable plausibility in saying that this tax is direct, non-enumerated, and not income, and thus not protected.

    It’s a ridiculous decision that they could plausibly make, but they’ve shown they don’t care if it’s ridiculous, only plausible.

    Edit: and of course, this was all planned.

    The Trump tax bill largely gave up on taxing US companies’ foreign assets in the future — corporate money kept overseas is now generally immune from taxation, even if it is brought into the United States.

    Also

    When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, it used a process that imposed a $1 trillion cap on how much the bill could add to the budget deficit over the next decade. So there’s a decent argument that, if Congress had known that the bill would increase the deficit by an additional $340 billion, it would have chosen not to enact any tax law at all.

    Lmao at “cutting taxes raises revenue” being a thing Republicans run on

    • @Asafum@feddit.nl
      8•1 year ago

      “Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. Found that a tax on income which was derived from property (rent, dividends, interest, etc.) was effectively a tax on the property, and so was a direct tax.”

      Ayyyy there it is, another argument for more benefits for the owners! Us schmucks should pay all the bills taken from our income and they get to laugh all the way to the bank sitting on their expensive properties they generate wealth from simply by existing. Fair and Balanced System™©®

      I know it’s old, but what a gross read. My income generated by my actual fucking labor should be taken, but your leech money is safe because you own a thing and do literally 0 work.