Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax would cost Jeff Bezos $4.1 billion in first year

[David__77]

Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have to pay $4.1 billion in the first year under U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax, based on his current net worth of $137.1 billion.

The Amazon founder and CEO and the other 174 Americans on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a ranking of the world’s 500 richest people, would collectively owe $61 billion.

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, proposed on Thursday a tax of 2 percent on those with assets of $50 million to $1 billion and 3 percent on all fortunes exceeding $1 billion. The tax would raise $2.75 trillion over a decade from about 75,000 families,The Washington Post reported, citing an economist advising Warren on the plan.

...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-would-cost-jeff-bezos-4-1-billion-in-first-year/

Great the Elizabeth Warren has a specific proposal to reduce class polarization in this country.

[fierywoman]

1. Why --- Bezos could *almost* give Spanky his dough for the wall ...{{{sarcasm}}}

[rusty fender]

2. Excellent!

We desperately need this tax

[David__77]

3. I hope it sets a new standard.

Perhaps the 2020 Democratic platform will include this, or something like it, and guaranteed employment, among other things.

[PoliticAverse]

4. It would likely only cost him what he'd have to pay his lawyers to challenge it in court..

as a "wealth tax" is most likely unconstitutional. There's a reason the 16th amendment was needed to implement the income tax.

[David__77]

6. It's a fight worth waging.

Certainly it should be tailored to immunize it against legal challenges to the extent workable. Certain taxes on transactions could be levied against those with high wealth, for instance. Then the tax is on the transaction and not the wealth itself.

[Maven]

9. Don't be so sure.

First, he would have to show standing to sue as a taxpayer. Taxpayer standing is a very fraught area of jurisprudence. Suffice it to say that standing to sue the federal government for how they tax citizens and where they spend the money is a very difficult bar to meet.

Second, unconstitutional based on what? Due process? Equal protection? Each of these claims is likely to fail for reasons too complicated to get into here.

[PoliticAverse]

11. If he's subject to the tax he'd definately have standing.

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

As to why it's unconstitutional see Article 1, Section 9:

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken

which is why the 16th Amendment had to be passed to make the income tax constitutional.

Edited to include a link to an extensive explanation of the constitutionality issue:
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-constitutionality-of-a-net-worth-tax

[Salviati]

5. Hey, that's 1/16th of what his divorce will cost

I'm not going to have too much sympathy for billionaires.

[Voltaire2]

7. Good.

A modest wealth tax is an excellent idea.

[Nanjeanne]

10. Oh no. How will he ever live?

[moondust]

12. Sure beats...

Right, Wilbur? Right, Davos darlings?