Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) and Bernie Sanders (I, VT) have proposed taxes on the wealth of Americans—2% on individuals worth more than $50 million and 3% on billionaires in Warren’s case, and from 1% on married couples worth $32 million, rising to 8% on those with wealth over $10 billion in Sanders’.

These are direct taxes, which would make them unconstitutional.  Their unconstitutionality does not arise from their directness but from their lack of State proportionality.  Proportionality—apportionment in the Constitution’s terms—means that such taxes can only be assessed in accordance with a State’s population relative to the other States’ populations, just as Representation in the Federal government House of Representatives is.

Naturally, Warren and Sanders presented their tax proposals armed with economists’ arguments in favor of them.  Two such arguments are these, proffered by Yale Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Bruce Ackerman, but they fail early.  Ackerman’s first, as paraphrased by FoxBusiness, is that a direct tax, as authorized in our Constitution, was

part of a compromise with the slave-holding South…. The purpose of it was to prevent the North from imposing a “head tax” on slaves, because that could not be apportioned equally across the states.
“Given this history, it is extremely unlikely that the justices will cite the founders’ original compromise with slavery to bar a tax that would serve the cause of economic equality and democratic legitimacy[.]”

This is an idle sophistry, though.  As the Constitutional authorization for direct taxes currently stands—since ratification of the 14^th Amendment—all references to slavery and to slaves have been removed from the nature of direct taxes.  The 14^th changed the definition of apportionment to referencing only the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.  That’s the sum and substance of the plain text of the Constitution on the matter of direct taxes.  The historical origin of the direct tax authorization not only is irrelevant, it’s been wholly and explicitly excised from our Constitution as it stands.

Ackerman’s other argument is this that claim that the Warren/Sanders direct tax proposals serve the cause of economic equality and democratic legitimacy.  This, though, is an oxymoron.  Forcing economic equality, even government merely pushing toward it via tax law, is antithetical to democratic legitimacy.  Forcing equal outcomes denies each man his opportunity to show the best that there is in him.  It blocks him from realizing the full outcome from his efforts under his right to equal opportunity.  Indeed, demanding equal outcomes utterly cancels not only each man’s equal opportunity, but his very right to that equality of opportunity.

The Progressive-Democrat candidates’ proposals are wholly unconstitutional—and completely undemocratic.

Who can be more socialist than the other?  Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) now has proposed

an annual wealth tax topping out at 8% for the richest Americans, offering the farthest-reaching Democratic plan to pay for expanded government programs and break up concentrated fortunes.

That’s much more than fellow Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) now paltry 2% wealth tax.

That’s on top of the race to give the most free stuff to the most people: who’s got the more extensive Housing-for-All plan, the broader Medicare-for-All plan, the more lucrative student debt forgiveness plan, Sanders’ plan to forgive all medical debt and parent debt taken in support of students (look for Warren to come up with plans for those soon), and on and on and on.

This sort of thing can only be done through government control or outright ownership of all property, and that’s at the core of socialism.

One-upping? No, it’s who can be the more socialist.

Even Stephen Colbert wants to know: under Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) payment scheme for her Medicare-for-All scheme, will middle class Americans’ taxes go up? He put the question to her in so many words:

You keep being asked in the debates how are you going to pay for it, are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes…. How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes?

Warren’s answer:

So, here’s how we’re going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations…. and hard-working middle-class families are going to see their costs going down.

Colbert tried again:

But will their taxes go up?

Warren evaded again:

Health care is a basic human right. We fight for basic human rights, and that’s Medicare-for-all.

The plain and simple meaning of Warren’s evasive answers is yes, middle class taxes will go up as part of her payment scheme. Their taxes will go up a lot.

…not to live in New York.  Aside from there being no place for folks who disagree with the Progressive-Democrats in charge, there’s this travesty.

A New Jersey resident—resident in every sense of the term—owns a vacation home in New York where he spends a few days each year…vacationing.

A state administrative law judge ruled last month that [the resident] owed $527,000 in back New York state income tax because of his upstate home. With interest and penalties, that is more than twice the $290,000 he paid for the house in 2011.

Why?  Because he spent those few days in that home which he owned, and under New York tax law that makes all of his income, regardless of where it actually was earned, subject to New York income tax.

I used to be a resident of Illinois, even as I was stationed—living—variously in Alaska and Florida.  I maintained Illinois residency because I was a supporter of then-Senator Chuck Percy.  My income was earned outside Illinois, and the State taxed none of it.  Had I had income earned in Illinois, the State would have taxed only that part of my total income, not the totality of it.

But New York doesn’t have that sense of integrity.  Pay up, sucka.  Or get outta here.