Cryptocurrency: Laughs at Wealth Taxes, Unrealized Gains Taxes, Govt Deficits

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Sun Oct 31 19:06:10 PDT 2021


The economic fuckups and commie crony thieves
known as Politicians worldwide, are coming for your
personal net worth... going to make Cyprus look like
holiday. ps: People revolted for imposition of fractional
percent "income tax", now global income tax is many
10's of percent, now they're adding this, and tracking
every $600 you move so they can steal more of it.

You don't need any such Govt to live your life
and do what can be done together.
Revolt Now... Adopt privacy capable crypto.


Joe Biden's "Eat The Rich" Coming To Bite You

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/29/warning-joe-bidens-eat-the-rich-pitch-may-come-back-to-bite-you/
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/578648-warning-joe-bidens-eat-the-rich-pitch-may-come-back-to-bite-you

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/22/warrens-wealth-tax-how-a-new-bill-would-convert-the-tax-code-into-a-canned-hunt/
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/richard-neal-skeptical-billionaire-tax
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/28/bidens-claim-that-his-spending-plan-costs-zero-dollars/
https://nypost.com/2021/09/27/joe-biden-slammed-for-build-back-better-price-claim-lie/
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/08/05/eat-the-rich-democratic-candidates-plunge-party-into-class-warfare-politics/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-blasio-we-will-tax-the-hell-out-of-the-wealthy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-democrat-proposes-annual-tax-on-unrealized-capital-gains-11554217383?mod=article_inline
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a-response-to-professor-bruce-ackerman/
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-10-22/us-budget-deficit-hits-277-trillion-in-2021-2nd-highest



Below is my column in the Hill on the renewed effort to pass a wealth
tax by the Biden Administration. The effort to tax “unrealized capital
gains” has been growing for months as an alternative to Elizabeth
Warren’s wealth tax.

However, it raises similar constitutional questions. What was most
notable is that the new tax was simply put into the Senate bill with
the support of the Biden Administration without a single hearing or
debate. That led to objections from figures like the Chair of the
House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Richard Neal who noted that it was
not vetted or studied. It is not part of the House bill.

However, many are still pushing the concept despite the significant
questions over its constitutionality.

Here is the column:

President Joe Biden has struggled to get the massive new spending bill
through Congress with a pitch that would make Joe Isuzu blush: “We
talk about price tags. It is zero price tag” and “My Build Back Better
agenda costs zero dollars.”

The trillions in spending is “free” — according to Biden — because
others will pay for it. It’s like claiming your college tuition was
free because your parents got the bill.

Biden is hardly the first politician to shrug off spending by saying
“the rich will pay for it.” Indeed, during the Democratic primary, the
candidates lined up behind figures like New York Mayor Bill De Blasio
declaring “we will tax the hell out of the wealthy.” Of course, the
“eat the rich” mantra has been part of politics for over 200 years.
What is different now is that President Biden has embraced a plan to
tax the rich that is not just unworkable and unprecedented but likely
unconstitutional.

The Biden administration appears ready to give up on a massive tax
increase — but intends to keep its “freebee” pledge by taxing the
“super rich.” However, it is not the target but the tax that is
different. The administration wants to tax “unrealized capital gains,”
a term akin to oxymorons like “exact estimate,” “openly deceptive,” or
— perhaps more apropos with the Biden tax — “going nowhere.”

Biden is suggesting that he will pay for the new spending by taxing
people not on what they have earned but what they could earn from
selling assets. Most people have assets that increase in value over
time. Consider a family home. Over the course of many years, it can
easily double in value, but you do not “realize” that money unless you
sell it. Biden is suggesting that the government should start taxing
you based on any increased value of the things you own, even though
you have not actually made that money. It doesn’t matter that the home
or stock or art could ultimately go down in value after you are taxed
on the higher value. Indeed, if you tax some unrealized gains, you
could in extreme cases force people to sell assets like a home to pay
the tax on income that they did not make.

The administration has started where few would object: billionaires.

The proposal would apply to fewer than 1,000 individuals who are worth
more than $1 billion or have annual incomes above $100 million for
three consecutive years. Taxing the appreciating asserts of a bunch of
fat cats is hardly a rallying cry for street protests.

The “Wyden plan” would allow for a one-time tax on unrealized gains,
with an annual tax on each billionaire’s gain in net worth. Initially,
it is expected to address losses, illiquid assets and enforcement;
however, the limitations to the super-rich is politically rather than
constitutionally driven.

And, if successful, it is unlikely that this untapped source of money
would be confined to the Bezos class. It would allow the government to
tax wealth.

The point is that the Biden administration is seeking to tax the value
of assets rather than income.

In many ways, this is a more creative way to achieve Sen. Elizabeth
Warren’s (D-Mass.) long-standing dream of a wealth tax. As I have
addressed earlier, the wealth tax runs counter to constitutional
limits on the taxation authority of Congress. Article One permits
Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”
However, it requires that these “be uniform throughout the United
States.” The next section says, “no capitation or other direct tax
shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration
herein before directed to be taken.” A wealth tax is a “direct tax.”

There are arguments that a wealth tax would be constitutional, and
there are cases on both sides of that issue. Advocates cite estate
taxes and other forms of taxation. However, there is then the small
problem of the 16th Amendment, which states “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.” The 16th amendment was passed
after the Supreme Court struck down an income tax as an unapportioned
direct tax. The amendment was passed to allow for an expanded federal
tax authority, but it was specifically limited to “income.”

While Warren thrilled liberal audiences by promising to go after the
“Rembrandts … diamonds and … yachts” of the wealthy, it was
practically and constitutionally dubious. Now however, the Biden
administration wants to take a less direct and smaller step toward the
same such tax. If successful, there would be little to stand in the
way of a full wealth tax on all Americans.

Such a tax, however, would have to pass constitutional muster with the
Supreme Court, which would have to accept the oxymoronic notion of
non-income income. It would also have to sign off on the idea of the
government taxing the value of assets that continually fluctuate or
change. It is like waiting for a gambler to win a hand at blackjack in
Vegas and taking 37 percent of his chips before he can play the next
hand.

Underlying this push is the notion that the wealth of individuals is
really “our” money being kept from us. That was born out during the
last primary debates when Warren made a show of gleefully rubbing her
hands together after saying that she would take some of the wealth of
her opponent John Delaney, a self-made millionaire worth $65 million.
People pay taxes on income when it is earned. They also pay taxes when
assets are sold. Now the Biden administration wants to tax assets
before they become income — imposing a continual taxation of wealth.

Even law professors pushing this tax admit that it is not clear that
it would pass constitutional review. If it didn’t — with Biden’s
“free” trillions already spent — the public, already saddled with a
deficit in the trillions, could find itself the recipient of a bill
for trillions more for what they thought was free tuition, day care
and other programs.

Some lies can be harmless, even charming. When Joe Isuzu promised
customers that a new car “has more seats than the Astrodome,” you did
not have to buy the car. With this new tax, Joe Biden is promising a
free car that the public may have to buy whether they like it or not.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list