The Democrat Leadership’s socialist/communist wealth tax

.

As we now see, a number of the Democrat candidates, and especially Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are promoting a wealth tax, which is in harmony with communist Karl Marx’s thinking: From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to His Needs.

Of course, these Democrats suggest that such a tax is necessary to make the “wealthy” pay their fair share of taxes ___ implying the wealthy do not now contribute to the financial needs of our federal government, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The top 1% of taxpayers in the United States paid as much in federal income taxes as the bottom 95%!

Aside from these Democrats’ love affair with relying on the great class-warfare lie used to promote a “wealth tax”, thinking people realize such a tax is in essence a tax upon financial success produced from investment, and is thus, in turn, a tax upon the engine which fuels a thriving and prosperous economy. But I will admit a “wealth tax” does sound great and appeals to the less educated and average income earning citizen, which is, in general, the largest segment of our nation’s population, and why these Democrat snakes promote a wealth tax which is designed to fuel a class warfare fight during the coming election.

If there ever was a need for tax reform, that reform would surely be ending the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal taxing of the property earned by working class people, i.e., ending the federal tax upon a working person’s earned wage.

In its place we ought to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan and have Congress, under normal circumstances, rely on indirect taxes ___ imposts, duties and excise taxes, basically taxing articles of consumption ___ and especially taxing articles of luxury so the rich may pay their fair share when enjoying the luxuries of life which the poorer folks can only imagine enjoying.

In this respect Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21, regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

Of course, ending the collection of the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, and limiting federal taxes to indirect taxes, imposts, duties, and excise taxes, under normal conditions, which in essence amounts to taxing consumption, such a reform would remove the communist/socialist heel from the necks of the American People, and likewise subdue its notoriously evil lust to control almost every aspect of the people’s private lives using direct taxation.

The bottom line is, if Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders’ claim to be advocates for America’s hard working wage earners is true, why are they not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the property which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor? Why are they promoting an additional federal tax, instead of advocating an end to a notoriously evil tax, and replacing it with a truly fair system of taxation?

JWK

“……with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Since that 1% holds 95% of the wealth damn straight they should pay more.

Well, they are, and have since the founding of our country! So why create another tax? To get some fairness, why not end the unconstitutional,socialist/communist type of tax, the “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, a type of tax which is currently used to confiscate the property which poor working people earn by the sweat of their labor?

JWK

Are there any candidates running that are advocating for getting rid of the Income tax?

Show me where in the constituion a wealth tax is allowed.

Remember, they are not wanting to tax income with the wealth tax.

They do pay more, far more than any other group.

If you want “fairness” institute a flat tax with no exceptions, exemptions, or credits of any kind. Everyone pays at the exact same rate.

3 Likes

I probably shouldn’t be asked about this because I believe billionaires should be taxed out of existence.

Is there an example anywhere in history of a nation taxing itself into prosperity?

Yes, the good old USA. What was the tax rate before Reagan? We became the most prosperous nation on earth no?

Well no that certainly isn’t true and the marginal rates were irrelevant since the effective rates on the rich went up following the Reagan reforms.

It was only after those reforms that ‘The Rich’ had for the for the first time in the modern era started paying the majority of all income taxes.

No.

We used to lead the word in industry and innovation.

Not anymore.

There are many different reasons for it, taxes just being one of the many reasons.

1 Like

Back when the personal rates were really high it cost too much money to pay themselves enormous salaries or take money out of their businesses so they mostly would just put it back in the business .

1 Like

Partially because of the tax codes again. Cheaper to outsource, open up a corporation on the caymen islands, tax benefits to move your factories overseas etc. The tax laws were always written to benefit someone with special interests

Well that isn’t true either and you can still do the exact same thing today if you own a business.

What the Reagan reforms did was eliminate thousands of pages of exemptions, deductions, and other end arounds.

Not only did the effective rates on the rich go up so did their total contribution to the treasury.

Taxes, wages, and “free trade” are all contributing factors to our industry being outsourced to other nations.

We traded our industry and single earner households so that we could buy cheaper crap from overseas.

2 Likes

This makes an interesting math puzzle - trying to figure out how the “Constitutional” method of taxation would affect our day-to-day lives.
Currently, the Federal Government raises about $3.6 Trillion in taxes ( https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 ). That’s not as much as it spends, but its a starting point.
Now, we want to get an equal amount from “imposts, duties and excise taxes”. What does that mean? Well, Imposts and duties are essentially the same thing - tariffs on imported goods. Excise taxes are essentially sales taxes on specified commodities. Typically, they’re commodities that everyone uses like gasoline, electricity, water, etc. But they could also be “luxury” items as well.
The simplest way to break the tax burden apart is to divide it into parts. Based on what I’m hearing in the OP, let’s divide it into three parts - Import duties, commodity excises, and “Luxury” excises. And for simplicity, let’s give them each an equal portion of revenue. That amounts to $1.2 Trillion revenue collected from each.
The U.S. imports about $3.1 Trillion in foreign goods each year ( https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-imports-and-exports-components-and-statistics-3306270 ) . That makes the calculation easy: to collect $1.2T in revenue, we have to tax all imports at 1.2T/3.1T x 100% = 38.7% That’s about half-again as high as the 25% punitive tariffs President Trump imposed on China in the first tranche last year. And that’s the rate we’d have to charge the whole World, not just China. As we know, tariffs aren’t paid by exporters, they’re passed along to consumers. Imports typically make up about 20% of everything sold in a country, and most of what we import is components that go into U.S.-made products, so we can guesstimate that overall prices will increase 20% x 38.7% or 7.7%.

Next, let’s look at commodities excises. There’s a whole lot of opportunities, here, but for simplicity, let’s consider we get revenue from just 5 commodities equally: Gasoline, electricity, Alcohol, Food, and an extra category to account for everything else.
The U.S. consumes 143 billion gallons of gasoline every year. So to make up its 1/5th of the excise revenue, we’d have to charge 0.20 x $1.2T /143 billion gal = $1.68/gallon Let’s generously say that the average price for a gallon of gas is $3, so that’s an increase of $1.67/$3 x 100% = 56%
So we can infer a 56% increase in the price of all these commodities due to the new excise tax.
What percentage an individual household spends on these important commodities varies with income, but let’s say a median is about 10% of income (somewhat higher for poor families and considerably lower for the wealthy). That make an increase of 5.6%

So for the “average” American the spending increase to support the tax change would be 7.7% + 5.6% = 13.3% This is offset by the savings in Federal Income tax. This is a modest benefit to middle-class Americans making $80-$150k/yr paying income tax of about 17%. However, truly poor families earning less than $80k/yr would actually see their tax burden increase from the 11% they pay now (ensuring that indeed, they will only be able to dream of ever enjoying luxuries).

Finally, let’s look at that last category of “Luxury” taxes. The value of Luxury goods in the U.S. was $192B in 2018 ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/491330/luxury-goods-united-states-market-value/ ).
So to raise $1.2T, the tax rate on Luxury goods would have to increase to $1.2T / $192B x 100% = 625% tax rate. The price of a new Cadillac would go from $78,000 to $525,000. A modest $15M private Jet would increase to $109M. A $1500 diamond engagement ring would climb to $11,000. Taxation at that rate would likely put most luxury items out of reach of all but the very most wealthy.

1 Like

This tax plan is great way to recreate third world conditions.

1 Like

Yeah, What kind of country do you think conservatives want?

The last time I checked there were many “Constitution Party” candidates advocating getting rid of federal un-apportioned direct taxes, which includes federal taxes calculated from wages, salaries, tips, etc.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)