Re:Italy proposes tax on savings hidden in safety deposit boxes
by jcranmer on Friday June 14, 2019 @10:11AM
(#20183139)
> This isn't even a tax.
It's a variation on wealth taxes. If the dictionary doesn't consider that to be a tax, then the dictionary definition is wrong. Notably, that definition also seems to imply that property taxes aren't taxes, despite them being millennia old.
> This is a result of Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., which affirmed the government directly stealing wealth is unconstitutional.
That is a horribly misleading summary. Pollock said a tax on rental income is effectively equivalent to a tax on the property itself, and since property taxes are direct taxes, such taxes must be apportioned to the states according to population per the Constitution. (Hence why the 16th amendment, whose sole purpose was to overturn Pollock, refers to "income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States").
Most notably, the Constitution explicitly refers to this kind of tax using the word "tax," and explicitly permits Congress to levy this kind of tax (albeit with some conditions), so your assertion that this kind of tax is not a tax is flatly contradicted by the people who wrote the basic instruments of the US government.
Not to mention that the US Constitution hardly matters at all when discussing the ability of Italy to levy taxes on its own citizens and residents, unless Italy became a US state in the past few days...
It's a variation on wealth taxes. If the dictionary doesn't consider that to be a tax, then the dictionary definition is wrong. Notably, that definition also seems to imply that property taxes aren't taxes, despite them being millennia old.
> This is a result of Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., which affirmed the government directly stealing wealth is unconstitutional.
That is a horribly misleading summary. Pollock said a tax on rental income is effectively equivalent to a tax on the property itself, and since property taxes are direct taxes, such taxes must be apportioned to the states according to population per the Constitution. (Hence why the 16th amendment, whose sole purpose was to overturn Pollock, refers to "income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States").
Most notably, the Constitution explicitly refers to this kind of tax using the word "tax," and explicitly permits Congress to levy this kind of tax (albeit with some conditions), so your assertion that this kind of tax is not a tax is flatly contradicted by the people who wrote the basic instruments of the US government.
Not to mention that the US Constitution hardly matters at all when discussing the ability of Italy to levy taxes on its own citizens and residents, unless Italy became a US state in the past few days...