Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15201
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Aresen » 23 Aug 2018, 18:01

Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 17:49
Highway wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 17:41
They weren't immune. They paid a settlement to the victims that at least someone thought was fair compensation.
Yes, "someone" thought it was fair compensation. Presumably "someone" thought every egregious-ruling example previously mentioned in this thread was fair -- while other "someones" say it's an outrage.
AFAICT, the settlement was court approved. Presumably, the plaintiffs agreed to it, however unwillingly. Who is going to be the arbiter of what is just?
jennifer wrote:No, but I'm saying defendants with deep pockets shouldn't be effectively immune from punishment for their crimes.
As Highway points out, they were NOT immune. And you are dwelling on punishment, not restitution. As I pointed out (and you omitted), libertarians believe the aim of justice is restitution rather than punishment.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 18:10

Deleted double post.
Last edited by Jennifer on 23 Aug 2018, 18:46, edited 1 time in total.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 18:17

Returning to something I mentioned a few pages ago: what would be the plausibility of... not "corporate death penalty" in the sense of wiping out that corporation and its assets, but more of a "revocation of corporate status/protection?"

Earlier on this thread I outlined the difference -- as I understand it, though I admitted upfront that I might be incorrect -- between, for example, "Jennifer the ordinary individual who made a little extra money buying tchotchkes at estate auctions and selling them for a profit," versus "JenCorp Tchotchke Company LLC": it's my understanding that "incorporating" my business would provide a certain level of protection to my own personal finances: "JenCorp" is effectively a different legal entity from "Jennifer, the person posting on the Gryll right now" -- if someone gets hurt from a JenCorp tchotchke, "JenCorp" might be sued and lose some or all of its assets, but "Jennifer's" assets (plus the assets of any other members of Jennifer's household) are not up for grabs.

Is this a generally accurate (though oversimplified) explanation of corporate status and its ostensible purpose? If so, then I wonder -- off the top of my head -- if revocation of corporate status would be a sufficient "corporate death penalty"? As in, if JenCorp knowingly and deliberately keeps selling tchotchkes that kill people, JenCorp no longer gets that protective corporate status?

Perhaps if those GM and Wells Fargo and other executives knew they personally would be screwed over their felonious activities committed under the corporate umbrella, they wouldn't have been so blase about allowing them to happen.


EDIT: "Quoted" my last post when I meant to "edit" it. Whoops. :oops:
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10616
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by JD » 23 Aug 2018, 18:21

Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 18:10
Is this a generally accurate (though oversimplified) explanation of corporate status and its ostensible purpose? If so, then I wonder -- off the top of my head -- if revocation of corporate status would be a sufficient "corporate death penalty"? As in, if JenCorp knowingly and deliberately keeps selling tchotchkes that kill people, JenCorp no longer gets that protective corporate status?
One question I have about this kind of revocation of corporate status - suppose it's not just "you, Jennifer, as JenCorp", but dear old Grandma owning some shares in MegaCorp as part of her retirement plans. MegaCorp is found guilty of crimes and its corporate status is revoked. Does that mean Grandma is now personally liable for MegaCorp's debts (at least to the degree of Grandma's shares divided by total shares)?
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 18:24

Aresen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 18:01
And you are dwelling on punishment, not restitution. As I pointed out (and you omitted), libertarians believe the aim of justice is restitution rather than punishment.
Some libertarians think the justice system should have a bit of deterrent value as well. And the system we have now clearly does not deter companies from committing crimes, in part because (again quoting Jadagul's point), corporations are far more likely to think of getting caught and convicted as non-catastrophic. (And with good cause: because for them it isn't.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15201
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Aresen » 23 Aug 2018, 18:27

The "Corporate Veil" is a complicated issue.

On the one hand, it does allow some individuals to avoid personal responsibility for malfeasance. To use the notorious phrase 'I was only following orders' doesn't cut it with me. I think if someone does something that is wrong, even if it was because 'that is XYZ Company Policy', they should be liable for it. [As an aside, I think that there needs to be much stronger protection for whistleblowers.]

On the other hand, it does promote capital investment. When I buy a company share, I know how much I have at risk. I don't have to worry that some court will issue a gigantic judgment against the corporation and I will be on the hook for the residue once the corporate assets have been exhausted.

If you are going to back off the 'limited' part of 'limited company', there is probably going to have to be some standard set of liability being dependent on a reasonable expectation that one knew what was going on.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 18:42

JD wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 18:21
Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 18:10
Is this a generally accurate (though oversimplified) explanation of corporate status and its ostensible purpose? If so, then I wonder -- off the top of my head -- if revocation of corporate status would be a sufficient "corporate death penalty"? As in, if JenCorp knowingly and deliberately keeps selling tchotchkes that kill people, JenCorp no longer gets that protective corporate status?
One question I have about this kind of revocation of corporate status - suppose it's not just "you, Jennifer, as JenCorp", but dear old Grandma owning some shares in MegaCorp as part of her retirement plans. MegaCorp is found guilty of crimes and its corporate status is revoked. Does that mean Grandma is now personally liable for MegaCorp's debts (at least to the degree of Grandma's shares divided by total shares)?
That, of course, is where it gets complicated. But, off the top of my head -- and I'm writing this on the assumption that my basic understanding of the "Jennifer vs. JenCorp" distinction is basically accurate -- if JenCorp not only existed, but grew to the point where it involved people other than Jennifer -- well, in that case I'm thinking of some sort of "active vs. passive" concept: which executives, investors, shareholders etc. were actively involved in JenCorp's killer-tchotchke activities, versus who merely owns a few shares of JenCorp as part of a diversifed investment portfolio?

Somewhere upthread I did specify that IF some type of "corporate death penalty" were put into effect, there would have to be some way of determining how much of its assets were returned to small investors and the like. Or perhaps part of a "death penalty" would include a mandatory buy-back of all shares held by "passive" owners or part-owners? I most assuredly am NOT arguing for ANY status quo wherein "the government could step in and confiscate all of a company's assets as punishment," both for injustice-avoidance reasons and because that would indeed lead to hellishly perverse incentives.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23263
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by JasonL » 23 Aug 2018, 18:48

I would take issue with the claim that the current regime of corporate regulation offers no deterrence. It certainly does or nobody would spend the kind of money they do on compliance. I wouldn’t even accept small or limited deterrence. What is likely the case is there is a category of cost benefit so large that you see some large events and there is a question about how to deal with that given that very often those actors are the same ones self interested politicians will want to bail out.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 19:00

JasonL wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 18:48
I would take issue with the claim that the current regime of corporate regulation offers no deterrence. It certainly does or nobody would spend the kind of money they do on compliance.
On the other hand, GM's faulty (and occasionally fatal) ignition switch cost only a 57-cent part to rectify, yet under the current regime of corporate regulation GM was not deterred away from letting its customers drive unsafe cars rather than shell out the extra 57 cents per vehicle.

IIRC, the only person to be convicted of a felony over GM's ignition switches was the innocent woman whose GM car got into an accident that killed her passenger/fiance.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7137
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Pham Nuwen » 23 Aug 2018, 19:02

Slavery? Are you even trying anymore, Jen? I know what you should do. Make some kind of analogy between businesses and rape. No need to possibly bring race into this.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 19:04

Pham Nuwen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:02
Slavery? Are you even trying anymore, Jen? I know what you should do. Make some kind of analogy between businesses and rape.
Here you go: an oldie but goodie from 2008. (Bonus: it mentions slavery too!)

https://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... cairn.html
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6911
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jadagul » 23 Aug 2018, 19:13

Two comments:

First, I don't see anything in Warren's bill that would really crack down on corporate malfeasance. Sure, she's willing to revoke corporate charters, but that mostly seems to be a stick for enforcing labor participation, not a remedy for unrelated misbehavior.

So while I think we should take corporate crime more seriously, I don't think that Warren's bill has anything to do with that.

Second, people are bad at understanding scale and that leads to bad arguments about this sort of thing.

Sure, let's stipulate that GM was willfully negligent in killing 400 people. And if an individual was willfully negligent in killing 400 people, that's a spectacular catastrophe, which really suggests some sort of malign intent, because otherwise how did you do that much damage?

But GM is acting on a much larger scale than any individual is. They take much bigger actions with much bigger consequences, and so even non-willful negligence could plausibly lead to hundreds of deaths. Or benefits much larger than that.

If I'm driving carelessly and I clip a pedestrian and put them in the hospital, I will definitely face consequences. I might even get my license taken away, but probably not permanently. I think I probably don't get jail time, depending on the form of the carelessness; I certainly don't get life in jail. And that's a lot more comparable to the GM thing than if I killed hundreds of people.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 19:18

Jadagul wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:13
Sure, let's stipulate that GM was willfully negligent in killing 400 people. And if an individual was willfully negligent in killing 400 people, that's a spectacular catastrophe, which really suggests some sort of malign intent, because otherwise how did you do that much damage?
Counter-argument: a non-malicious individual in the right position could cause that much damage through laziness or neglect or utter incompetence: say, if you're the individual (or individuals) in charge of quality control for that 57-cent GM part. Or the individuals{s} who discovered it but couldn't be bothered to fix it, not out of a malicious desire to see drivers get hurt but because it would be a time-consuming pain in the ass to fix, or maybe would cost you part of that year's annual bonus, or....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15201
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Aresen » 23 Aug 2018, 19:50

Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:18
Jadagul wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:13
Sure, let's stipulate that GM was willfully negligent in killing 400 people. And if an individual was willfully negligent in killing 400 people, that's a spectacular catastrophe, which really suggests some sort of malign intent, because otherwise how did you do that much damage?
Counter-argument: a non-malicious individual in the right position could cause that much damage through laziness or neglect or utter incompetence: say, if you're the individual (or individuals) in charge of quality control for that 57-cent GM part. Or the individuals{s} who discovered it but couldn't be bothered to fix it, not out of a malicious desire to see drivers get hurt but because it would be a time-consuming pain in the ass to fix, or maybe would cost you part of that year's annual bonus, or....
Agree. But remember that GM (or google or Amazon or any other billion-dollar corporation) has thousands or tens of thousands of employees. Extinguish the corporation and you are punishing thousands of innocent people along with the guilty.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 20:16

Aresen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:50
Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:18
Jadagul wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:13
Sure, let's stipulate that GM was willfully negligent in killing 400 people. And if an individual was willfully negligent in killing 400 people, that's a spectacular catastrophe, which really suggests some sort of malign intent, because otherwise how did you do that much damage?
Counter-argument: a non-malicious individual in the right position could cause that much damage through laziness or neglect or utter incompetence: say, if you're the individual (or individuals) in charge of quality control for that 57-cent GM part. Or the individuals{s} who discovered it but couldn't be bothered to fix it, not out of a malicious desire to see drivers get hurt but because it would be a time-consuming pain in the ass to fix, or maybe would cost you part of that year's annual bonus, or....
Agree. But remember that GM (or google or Amazon or any other billion-dollar corporation) has thousands or tens of thousands of employees. Extinguish the corporation and you are punishing thousands of innocent people along with the guilty.
Arguably, the real problem here is, whatever the hell it is about the current status quo that enables such individuals to avoid criminal consequences IF they are working for a corporation. Why did none of the GM people alluded to in my comment you quoted there get charged, let alone convicted? Why or how did all those Wells Fargo people get away with deliberate fraud that would've sent you or I (acting on our own) to prison for a significant fraction of our adult lives?

Going back to Jennifer/JenCorp: if it's later proven that Jennifer the individual tchotchke-seller knows the tchotchkes she sells can kill people -- have killed people, and continue to do so -- because she refuses to spend the 57 cents per tchotchke* to rectify the problem, Jennifer's ass is going to prison for a long time. But if Jennifer and several other people do the same thing while working for JenCorp -- a "too big to fail" mega-corporation -- oh, well, let's take a fraction of a percentage point of JenCorp's total value and call it justice. WTF?

*And of course, 57 cents is a FAR greater percentage of the cost of a given tchotchke, than it is for the cost of a given GM automobile.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7137
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Pham Nuwen » 23 Aug 2018, 20:38

Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:04
Pham Nuwen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:02
Slavery? Are you even trying anymore, Jen? I know what you should do. Make some kind of analogy between businesses and rape.
Here you go: an oldie but goodie from 2008. (Bonus: it mentions slavery too!)

https://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... cairn.html
I don't understand what you are saying. Could you throw in a reference to rape that has nothing to do with an argument? It's apparently the only way to reach people and bring them to your side.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 23 Aug 2018, 20:49

Pham Nuwen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 20:38
Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:04
Pham Nuwen wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 19:02
Slavery? Are you even trying anymore, Jen? I know what you should do. Make some kind of analogy between businesses and rape.
Here you go: an oldie but goodie from 2008. (Bonus: it mentions slavery too!)

https://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... cairn.html
I don't understand what you are saying. Could you throw in a reference to rape that has nothing to do with an argument? It's apparently the only way to reach people and bring them to your side.
Well, here's a story of a time I went to a party and told the hostess she didn't have enough rape there. Could you ask me for another rape reference? It's apparently the only way you can contribute to this discussion and, as an added bonus, it gets wittier and more original every time you do it!
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2659
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jake » 23 Aug 2018, 23:58

Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 20:16
Arguably, the real problem here is, whatever the hell it is about the current status quo that enables such individuals to avoid criminal consequences IF they are working for a corporation.
This, in my mind, is the nut* of the issue right here. It's not really that "GM" was willfully negligent; after all, GM is only a thing in a conceptual sense, so to say that it was willfully anything is just anthropomorphism, like if I said that my dishwasher was being a jerk. The real situation is that some person in GM knew but did nothing. That person was willfully negligent and should be charged, convicted, and punished. I suppose it's easier to just blame the company and extract money, but that's not good enough if what we're after is anything like actual justice.

* A saddle-broken pecan, specifically.
"Facebook is like a locker room with all the players screaming at each other how much they have to win and then forgetting they have to take the field and actually play the gawddamn game." -- D.A. Ridgely

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6911
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jadagul » 24 Aug 2018, 03:23

Jake wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 23:58
Jennifer wrote:
23 Aug 2018, 20:16
Arguably, the real problem here is, whatever the hell it is about the current status quo that enables such individuals to avoid criminal consequences IF they are working for a corporation.
This, in my mind, is the nut* of the issue right here. It's not really that "GM" was willfully negligent; after all, GM is only a thing in a conceptual sense, so to say that it was willfully anything is just anthropomorphism, like if I said that my dishwasher was being a jerk. The real situation is that some person in GM knew but did nothing. That person was willfully negligent and should be charged, convicted, and punished. I suppose it's easier to just blame the company and extract money, but that's not good enough if what we're after is anything like actual justice.

* A saddle-broken pecan, specifically.
That's not necessarily true.

I mean, yes, "GM" is an abstraction, which is why you can't put "GM" in jail or ask "GM" what he was thinking. But GM is also a large somewhat self-organizing process, and that means that GM is capable of doing things that no specific employee is really doing. Lots of things happen as a result of the totality of the system that you can't pin on any particular person.

There are lots of things you can pin on a particular person. And I'd like to see more of that happen. But there's a lot of stuff that it doesn't make sense to attribute to any one or three people. And this is especially true for civil-not-criminal liability cases.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 28 Jan 2019, 17:19

Semi-related and not worth starting a new thread over IMO: there's is talk of Warren's proposed "wealth tax" on super-high fortunes, and pretty much everything I've seen has said this is (or would be declared) unconstitutional. But here is a question I've not seen answered or even addressed: why would that tax be unconstitutional whereas pre-existing property taxes (on your primary residence, not even "investment" or "business" properties) are not?

I have a particular interest in this topic because I basically left Connecticut as a tax refugee, and what made me leave was NOT the nickel-and-dime taxes -- okay, ten cents a gallon more on gasoline, an extra penny per pound of cornmeal compared to the next state over -- pffft, even MY frugal penny-pinching self won't leave a state I love over nickel-and-dime nonsense like THAT -- no, what made me leave was the realization of how appallingly high property taxes were. In 2008 I was writing for a (sadly now defunct) alt-weekly, and did an article about a local town's revaluation for tax assessment purposes: long story short, a certain old man lived in the 1950s Cape Cod house he'd inherited from his parents. In 2007 his property tax bill was $8,000. In 2008, after the reval, it was $15,500. And property taxes in that town have risen higher than inflation EVERY YEAR since then. He paid significantly more tax on his mortgage-free old house than I paid in rent on my spacious three-bedroom. And that's when I told Jeff we needed to GTFO of that state: what's the point in saving to buy a house and pay off the mortgage if we end up with HIGHER housing costs as a result? Property taxes literally make it impossible for poor or middle-income homeowners to continue owning property they already bought and paid for -- yet somehow, this is constitutional whereas Warren's proposed wealth tax (which apparently is a direct ripoff of something Trump proposed a few years back) is not. Why? (The cynical part of me knows the answer is most likely "Well, see, confiscatory property tax rates only harm poor and middle-class people, whereas a tax on mega-fortunes will annoy the mega-wealthy, and clearly we can't have that." But officially, I'm sure the answer is something far less odious.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9276
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by nicole » 28 Jan 2019, 17:47

Jennifer wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 17:19
Semi-related and not worth starting a new thread over IMO: there's is talk of Warren's proposed "wealth tax" on super-high fortunes, and pretty much everything I've seen has said this is (or would be declared) unconstitutional. But here is a question I've not seen answered or even addressed: why would that tax be unconstitutional whereas pre-existing property taxes (on your primary residence, not even "investment" or "business" properties) are not?
Because property taxes aren't federal.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23263
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by JasonL » 28 Jan 2019, 18:00

Right. The constitution required amendment to allow for a federal income tax. The constitution says something about direct taxes must be apportioned by population in the states. The income tax doesn’t do that so it requires an amendment. There is no federal property tax and the argument is wealth tax would be like a property tax like you suggest.

That said - no tax since income tax has failed this test because they find weasel ways around the “direct tax” language.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15201
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Aresen » 28 Jan 2019, 18:07

Jennifer wrote:
28 Jan 2019, 17:19
Semi-related and not worth starting a new thread over IMO: there's is talk of Warren's proposed "wealth tax" on super-high fortunes, and pretty much everything I've seen has said this is (or would be declared) unconstitutional.
I would love to see the political theater if a Blue Congress passed President Warren's "Wealth Tax" and the SCOTUS shot it down. It would be hilarious. Even funnier than the wailing about "Citizens United."
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23709
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Mo » 28 Jan 2019, 18:14

JasonL wrote:Right. The constitution required amendment to allow for a federal income tax. The constitution says something about direct taxes must be apportioned by population in the states. The income tax doesn’t do that so it requires an amendment. There is no federal property tax and the argument is wealth tax would be like a property tax like you suggest.

That said - no tax since income tax has failed this test because they find weasel ways around the “direct tax” language.
Right, you can probably put some sort of income surtax based on total wealth that could get around it. Since you can change people’s taxes for being married, there’s nothing stopping Congress for changing the tax because you’re wealthy.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23172
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Elizabeth Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Post by Jennifer » 28 Jan 2019, 18:42

Started the same convo on Facebook, and the state v. federal distinction was brought up, but also there was this:

ME: Wait a minute: I just checked A1S8 of the constitution, which says in part that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" ... but presumably this power to lay and collect taxes does NOT apply to taxes on assets/wealth? Again, why?

GUY 1: I don't know. But you'd think that would cover income tax, yet that required an amendment. I'm just guessing here.

GUY 2: Because they wouldn't be uniform. Some would pay more than others. That's why an amendment was necessary to impose an income tax. But that amendment was just about income, not wealth.

ME: "Because they wouldn't be uniform. Some would pay more than others." Huh? Couldn't you say the same about "duties, imposts and excises" -- at least in the sense that, say, if YOUR factory manufactured $1 million worth of goods last year whereas MY factory only manufactured $100,000 worth, you'd pay excise taxes ten times higher than mine? (I say this on the assumption that there never was, like, a single one-size-fits-all "excise" tax which applied to ANYONE who manufactured and sold things in-country, regardless of how much or how valuable.)

ME: Or with whiskey taxes: surely those were "uniform" in the sense that you and I both pay the same tax-per-gallon, but that does NOT mean "every whiskey maker pays the exact same amount of tax regardless of how much or how little whiskey they make." We would still have different tax bills based on how much whiskey we actually made and sold.

GUY 2: Those are all uniform per unit, from the first to the nth.

A wealth tax is not going to be uniform per unit because nobody's going to propose taxing your first unit of wealth, or at least not at the same rate as your nth unit. There'll be a tax-free amount then most likely a progressive structure as with income taxes.

GUY 3 [expat Brit in America, FWIW]: It can be seen as a "progressive" rather than uniform tax, or "means-tested". I favor AOC's 60%-70% on earnings over $ 34,715 an hour. That encourages re-investment into businesses.

While status is predicated on numbers in the bank, this will continue to be a problem. Personally I'm prouder of the number of jobs I've created than the marginal tax bracket I'm in.

ME [responding to G2's latest comment since G3's was not yet visible]: But -- taking a *strictly* constitutional POV (meaning, I am reading what's in the constitution, and nothing else at all) -- the income tax amendment does not say anything about allowing progressive rates either. Also: I'm looking at a "Constitution Center" website (link below), which I just-now found while searching for the text of the 16th amendment -- it mentions background stuff which I only just learned but I'm sure you know already, regarding Pollock, direct v. indirect taxation, and so on. So I read part of this thing, then switched from reading to skimming once my eyes started glazing over pretty slick, and -- I'm still not seeing for certain how this remains relevant re: Warren/Trump's wealth tax proposal, compared to all the other taxes which already exist.

ME: Oh, and here's that link I mentioned: https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... q66xGlcluE

GUY 2: Oh, as I said above, I'm not an expert on this issue. Which is why I would never wager that the Court would rule the way these critics would. [snip] I wouldn't wager that the Court shares their view of Warren's tax. I wouldn't wager it doesn't, either. I just wouldn't wager.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests