Skip to main content

View Diary: Lotteries Should be Funded with Wealth, Transaction, & Inheritance Taxes (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see why. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir

    Pour yourself into the future.

    by Troubadour on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:43:29 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Under the Constitution the federal government (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, Neuroptimalian

      does not have plenary taxing powers. That is why an amendment was required to create the federal income tax. States have plenary taxing powers if they are included in the state constitutions, but not the federal government.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:24:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Article I seems pretty clear that it has the power (0+ / 0-)

        to levy taxes.  I don't know what kind of silly right-wing Supreme Court decision made it necessary to have a Constitutional amendment allowing income taxation, but the fact that we have such an amendment does not necessitate that all forms of taxation levied by the federal government have their own explicit Constitutional authorization.

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:36:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Constitution allows for some specific taxes (3+ / 0-)

          but there has not been any SCOTUS has opined that the Constitution gives the federal government broad or plenary taxing powers. This has nothing to do with right-wing views, its a clear consensus. The taxing powers of the federal government are limited.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:43:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In any case, it's not central to this discussion. (0+ / 0-)

            As long as the money for the lottery comes from the rich, any kind of tax or combination of taxes would work just as well.

            Pour yourself into the future.

            by Troubadour on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:45:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  In that case (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            how is it that the SCOTUS ruled the ACA individual mandate constitutional SPECIFICALLY because it was a tax?  Or you're telling me that the Constitution explicitly authorizes taxation on individuals in order to force them to buy an overpriced product of lousy quality, but doesn't authorize taxing business transactions or inheritance, which is already federally taxed?

            •  The estate tax has survived legal challenges (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neuroptimalian

              And I have not read that anyone has a constitutional issue with a transaction tax on securities. However, there is a lot written on an annual wealth tax and the consensus is that a separate amendment, like the 16th, would be required.  

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:10:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  its an unconstitutional direct tax. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kickemout, VClib, Troubadour

      the last time we wanted to levy a direct tax (the income tax), we had to pass an amendment to do it

      as vclib notes, this is conventional wisdom stuff.  there are some outliers, but general sense is that it'd be unconstitutional (one of the more prominent proponents of the theory that it would constitutional is a pretty well known scholar, buy I can't remember his name.  anyways, his argument is so bad it beggars belief.  its basically "slavery was legal, ergo we can ignore the constitution's limits on the federal government.". if that's the best that supporters can do, I think the matter is pretty much settled.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site