New York Times congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman offered some strong “soak the rich” energy in his optimistic analysis of the Democratic Party’s latest money-raising proposal, “How Democrats Would Tax Billionaires to Pay for Their Agenda — The plan stakes out new territory by putting levies on unrealized gains in the value of billionaires’ liquid assets, such as stocks, bonds and cash.”
If “stakes out new territory” was a euphemism for “unconstitutional levy,” then it certainly does. The lead sets the tone, ranting in non-journalistic fashion about “the richest of the rich” with their “mountains of wealth,” like real-life Scrooge McDucks swimming in their vaults of gold coins:
Senate Democrats propose to tax billionaires to pay their climate change and social security nets.
The dubious constitutionality of the federal government taxing unrealized gains was euphemistically dismissed in paragraph two as the subject of possible “court challenges”:
The billionaires tax would almost certainly face court challenges, but given the blockade on more conventional tax rate increases imposed by Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Democrats have few other options for financing their domestic agenda.
For the first time, it would tax billionaires for unrealized gains in their liquid assets like stocks, bonds, and cash. These capital reserves can continue to grow over the years, creating vast capital resources that can be borrowed for income tax-free living.
The tax would apply to all those with over $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three consecutive years:
That hit could be huge for people like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos the Amazon founder, or Elon Musk the Tesla founder, as their initial stock holdings were worth zero. This sum would be paid in five years.
….
Democrats believe the billionaires tax is one of the most popular parts of their climate and social safety net. It will cost $1.5 trillion, and may be finished as quickly as Wednesday.
“I think there is an absolute understanding that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when you have people like Jeff Bezos, in a given year, not paying a nickel in federal income taxes, that these guys are going to have to start paying their fair share,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.
“Vermont independent” was one way to describe the proud socialist Sanders.
Weisman only raised questions about the Constitutionality of the Fundraising Scheme in the last paragraph.
Some Democrats oppose the plan, fearing that it might not be possible and may be subject to constitutional and legal challenges. The Constitution gives Congress broad powers to impose taxes, but says “direct taxes” — a term without clear definition — should be apportioned among the states so that each state’s residents pay a share equal to the share of the state’s population.
The 16th Amendment made clear that income taxes don’t have to be divided. Proponents of the billionaires-tax have tried to make it a tax on income and not wealth.
Weisman approved of spending as well as tax hikes. His September headline story, which he wrote as the main author, celebrated President Biden’s spending plan and the liberal Democrats of Congress.
About Post Author
