The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Wealth Taxes are Direct Taxes that are Subject to the Rule of Apportionment
An originalist analysis
David Schizer, the former Dean of the Columbia University School of Law, and I have just today posted a manuscript on SSRN at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4867878
It will be published in the Florida Law Review (2025).
We argue that the Direct Taxes Clause applies to taxes that fall straight upon a person, while imposts, duties and excises all fall only upon such transactions as: importing goods, buying or selling goods, inheriting an estate or giving a gift, renting someone's property, or selling one's labor to someone else in exchange for money. We think that a wealth tax falls directly on persons, and not on transactions, as we explain in the above cited draft law review article.
We discuss the original meaning of the Taxation Clauses, court opinions from the Founding to the present day, and arguments in law review articles and amicus briefs made by major scholars. Far from being a glitch in the Constitution, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned prevents a majority of the states in Congress from imposing a tax that will fall heavily on certain states and regions. The Clause thus not only limits taxes on enslaved persons and undeveloped land of which the South had a lot in 1787; the Direct Tax Clause also bans Congress from taxing ships, manufacturing, or small farms, which were prevalent in the North but scarce in the South. Both types of fiscal raids are made politically impracticable by the Direct Tax Clause.
The Framers meant for the federal government to rely only on indirect taxes in peacetime, but they made available direct taxes that are not geographically biased in wartime. There is an appealing element of voluntariness in indirect taxes, which is that one can always avoid the tax by not engaging in the taxed transaction. Such voluntariness is absent when direct taxes are imposed.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Interesting. Too bad Calabresi undermined his credibility with his recent unhinged tirades on this blog.
Eh. I can't engage given the substance of his recent posts.
That said, the best evidence of what people thought at the time is a case from the time; Hylton v. United States (1796).
It is always odd to me that people today claim to know more about what people of the time thought that ... well, people of the time.
Like John Adams understood how throwing newspaper editors in jail under the Sedition Acts of 1797 was perfectly cromulent, just 7 years after adopting the First Amendment.
Yessirree them good old boys certainly knew a lot.
It wasn't kosher overall but going by "originalism" it very well might have been. The core concern was no prior restraints. The laws had various protections.
Adams had grave doubts about the Alien and Sedition Acts but felt he could not veto something which had such overwhelming Congressional support (veto proof in the Senate). This would have been the first significant presidential veto and everyone was still feeling their way.
In other words, they didn't know what they were doing, as I said, and as loki13 claimed otherwise.
Alphabet — No. In other words you do not know what they were doing.
That is the result you can always expect when you apply present-minded standards retroactively, especially after the passage of centuries. The question is whether you prefer to rant, or whether you prefer to learn what happened in the past. The method to achieve the latter result is laborious, so I suspect you will continue to prefer to rant.
Same. I didn’t know he cared about anything except kissing someone’s a** I hopes of being one of the next generation of attorneys who fall on the sword for That Guy.
They do admit that "Hylton offers the strongest argument against our interpretation". Their attempt to nonetheless distinguish Hylton is in section V.A. (pp. 56-68). I don't have an opinion on whether that attempt is persuasive or not, but thought I'd flag that it's at least there.
Wow, originalism! I like it, and I’m just a Sawbones who speaks Engrish as a Second Language (badly)
But can one of you Mouthpieces(HT Rico) explain in simple terms what a “Direct Tax” izzzzzzzzzzz(HT WJC)???
Seem to remember it was an Ish-yew with Osama-Care, and in simple terms like how I explain ED to a Somali refugee
“Your Dicks Fucked Up” ( Somali translator gestures wildly and punctuates every harsh diphthong with a tongue click)
Frank “ a Republic? What if I don’t want to keep it?”
Any chance Schizer is a clinger, too?
If he isn't/was't a Federalist Societeer, I'll stop posting the "Bigotry Scoreboard" for a few weeks.
Oh, don't stop, we'd be lost without you and your wisdom.
No Arthur, don't stop. We need StormFront represented here. 😛
You -- like Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh -- ignore the blatant bigotry (including antisemitism) published every day at this white, male, right-wing blog, then leap to pin antisemitism (occasionally real, customarily merely perceived) on liberals every chance you get.
You assholes aren't competitive in the American culture war any longer, and this is an important part of the reason your stale, ugly conservative thinking is doomed in modern, improving-against-your-Republican-wishes America.
When Israel fails, it will be because of right-wing assholes like you.
Me? I'm looking for bacon cheeseburger recipes.
I have heard people argue that a wealth tax is a form of income tax that would be covered by the 16th amendment.
A wealth tax makes a mockery of the 5th Amendment of taking property for public use without compensation.
Take a building? Nope!
Like a cheesy game show, take the cash equivalent, sure!
Ridiculous.
Also, it is an insidious grab. Unable to constrain spending and borrowing, just start taking. As evetything progresses and life gets better and better, less government should be needed, not more. Simple, disgusting corruption, buying votes.
Remember, they borrow proportional to the GDP, because that's what they can get away with. It has nothing to do with need. The budget could be balanced tomorrow, as happened during the Internet boom of the 1990s, and Congress did not take that lying down, and rapidly increased spending back into the red.
It's evolved behavior. To be corrupt, you need to be in power, and the best way is to lavish on the voters.
A wealth tax is also impossible to collect. Most wealth is in the form of investments, not Scrooge McDuck piles of gold coins and jewelry. It has to be sold to be valuable, and who's going to buy it in a seller's market? You can't even appraise it properly without selling it.
I added up the full wealth of the Forbes 400: $4.5 trillion, not even a full year's budget, and barely 10% of the national debt. Of course, the minute you try to tax even 1% of it, the total value plummets, and 3% or 5%? The economy would dive faster than a politician's hands into somebody else's pockets.
Seems pretty obvious that taxes aren't takings since the Constitution clearly gives Congress the taxing power, even if some taxes have to be apportioned.
Although comparisons are made with the debt/deficit to the GDP, none of the actual enabling mechanisms are directly tied to GDP. It's just a useful barometer to be able to compare the size of these things over time and between countries since looking at it in constant dollars would be pretty stupid. Another way of looking at it is per capita, which is also a common form of analysis of the debt.
"Seems pretty obvious that taxes aren’t takings since the Constitution clearly gives Congress the taxing power, even if some taxes have to be apportioned."
Just recast any taking as being a tax, then.
The difference is whether the person paying can choose how to allocate it. If it's a tax (involving money), you can choose which source to draw from to pay that money. If it's eminent domain, it involves a specific piece of property. You're not free to say "I'll give this property instead." That's why taxes and takings can be very intuitively distinguished.
If some executive officer says "TheAmazingEmu must pay $50000 to the government's general fund in special emu tax", does that mean it's a tax because you can choose a source for the money, or is it a taking? (John Roberts might argue that it's a tax on the status of being an amazing emu.)
I think what you're describing is simply payment in liquid assets, not a useful distinction between takings and taxes.
Right. Well, something more is needed than just saying “huh taxes obviously aren’t takings because the constitution.”
Under your theory, could Congress pass a tax on TheAmazingEmu equal to 100% TheAmazingEmu’s assets and income? No specific requirement on where you get the money to pay, of course. Under your theory, this would not be a taking, I gather (setting aside other potential constitutional/legal problems).
I found this interesting article, the theory you articulated is covered in II.A. https://law.wm.edu/faculty/documents/kades_taxtakings.pdf
Their nastiest trick is stuffing government spending into the GDP. While technically it is appropriate, that just gives them cover to paper over bad economies. Just spend a gazillion more and on paper we have a screaming economy! Then when you calculate in the "government multiplier" the economy is doing super duper mega awesome!
well, if they're exceptionally bad at reading.
Pretty much every tax law textbook discusses imputed income at some point e.g., when you do your own laundry, you are effectively paying yourself a wage. The normal explanation is that imputed income is really "income" in the economic sense. The government just defers from actually taxing it for prudential reasons.
So, presumably, Congress could tax the imputed income of property, and do so at a different rate than for earned income (c.f., different rates for capitol gains).
"bans Congress from taxing ships, manufacturing, or small farms"
Manufacturing is a particularly curious choice for a "direct" tax.
You are taxing a transaction.
Small farms without more would be a form of land.
Ships? Not quite as strange as manufacturing, but doubtful.
Anyway, the ships usually would be involved in some activity for the government to tax.
What a "direct tax" was -- except for the obvious (land & slaves/persons) -- confused even the Founders. Using unclear "originalist" arguments to limit the taxing power, applied by representatives of the people who are checked and balanced, is dubious.
By manufacturing, I think he means a tax on factories per se. So the Federal Govt could not impose a tax of $500 per loom per year, or something like that.
Leaving aside Prof C's lately demonstrated "instability," does anybody who looks at this question seriously doubt that a Federal wealth tax would be an unconstitutional direct tax? People like Sen. Warren bring it up from time to time to demagogue, but I think even they are smart enough to realize that (a) it would be politically DOA, and (b) it would be unconstitutional (absent a constitutional amdt) even if it were politically viable.
Pollock (the original income tax case from 1895) is almost completely on point. It held, among other things, that a tax on "income" derived from ones own property was a direct tax. Accordingly, a tax on the property itself would also have to be a direct tax.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/
With the current Supreme Court, those are the same thing.
Politically viable actions are per se unconditional under the current Supreme Court? Can you elaborate on the identity relation that you are asserting?
Ruled unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court is the same thing as not politically viable because the current Supreme Court is just another political actor.
" $500 per loom per year"
It's a factory. I'm not seeing why it is not a non-direct business tax.
I "seriously doubt" it since back to the 1790s, the general understanding was that direct taxes involved land and people.
Pollock was a late in the day 5-4 opinion that can be discussed in various ways. The 16th Amendment simplified things but various types of taxes, including corporate & inheritance, was upheld afterward anyhow.
What it tells me about a "wealth" tax in general is unclear.
Also, it is difficult to apportion "wealth."
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2959/
Back in the 1790s, land was the primary manifestation of wealth, so if the direct tax clause was intended to prohibit unapportioned land/property taxes, it stands to reason that it was intended to cover taxes on personalty as well.
The difficulty in apportioning a wealth tax is the reason that it is going to be unconstitutional. If wealth happened to be distributed proportionally by population among the states, a wealth tax could/would be apportioned and thus pass constitutional muster even though it was a direct tax. However, wealth is not so distributed. Ironically, the apportionment clause was put in to protect states like California from just his sort of law, even though Californians are likely to be among its biggest supporters.
Trump is Disqualified from Being on Any Election Ballots
"Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bans anyone from holding any federal office who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and who then breaks that oath by engaging in "insurrection or rebellion against the same." Donald J. Trump is precisely such a person."
- Calabresi, 8/10/23
Donald Trump Should be on the Ballot and Should Lose
- Calabresi, 9/16/23
January 6, 2021 Was Not an Insurrection
- Calabresi, 1/6/24
By next month, Calabresi will have a post titled: Wealth Taxes are NOT Direct Taxes and are therefore NOT Subject to the Rule of Apportionment (and PRIVATE CITIZEN Jack Smith did 9/11!)
Well he was wrong the first time. Second time was opinion, but the law was sound. Third doesn’t really matter because Trump didn’t incite the alleged insurrection.
But just stick with me and you with me and you can’t go wrong.
That was pretty funny...
are you ok? What does any of this have to do with the subject?
What I take from this is that the one true tenet of the Republican Party, to which Calabresi owes his final and most pure allegiance, is to ensure rich people are taxed as little as possible, ideally not at all.
Everything else, outlawing abortion, hating immigrants, supporting Trump, loving Russia, is less important and will be discarded if needed to keep taxes low or nonexistent.
Taxes are a moral issue for libertarians, an evil per se.
I have to admit this is a mess:
“We argue that the Direct Taxes Clause applies to taxes that fall straight upon a person, while imposts, duties and excises all fall only upon such transactions as: importing goods, buying or selling goods, inheriting an estate or giving a gift, renting someone's property, or selling one's labor to someone else in exchange for money. “
Since taxes on buying and selling goods, inheriting an estate, gift giving, renting property, or selling labor are all income taxes authorized by the 16 amendment, and are not direct taxes authorized by article 1.
Wealth taxes are not direct taxes authorized by Article 1, nor income taxes authorized by the 16th amendment.
But they are takings banned by the 5th amendment.
If a tax on income derived from personal property (e.g. rent, dividends and interest) is an unconstitutional direct tax, then a tax on the property itself must be a direct tax. See Pollock (the 1895 SCT income tax case).
Arguing that a wealth tax is a 5th amdt taking is a terrible idea. If that is a taking, the all taxes are takings. And when libertarians start ranting about how all taxation is theft, the rest of us move to the other end of the bus.
All taxes (including direct taxes, whatever they might be) are authorized by Article I, section 8. The clause at issue here is a restriction on that power, which requires direct taxes to be proportioned by state population. This effectively prevented the institution of an income tax, which is why the sixteenth amendment was proposed in the first place.
spoiler: some people think the rules matter
Especially the rules that protect the rich.
Ok, fine but even if I accept this principle I don’t see what stops congress from making the eventual tax upon realization depend on the number of years on which the asset is held.
Indeed, while it may not be able to perfectly model a wealth tax in a theoretical sense, for all practical purposes you can create an income tax which is damn close to simulating a wealth tax. Ok fine, maybe you can’t get at someone who has no income at all and gold bars buried in their backyard but you could tax all their income at 100% until the amount that would be demanded by the wealth tax is paid which would essentially do the same for all practical purposes especially if you regard inheritance as income.
you mean a “short term capital gains tax” set at a different rate?
no one has thought of that
Seems like you can get most of the benefits (and drawbacks) of a wealth tax just by taxing unrealized capital gains:
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/mark-to-market-taxation-of-capital-gains/
Taxing unrealized gains is a wealth tax.
No b/c it only taxes gains. Wealth taxes hit regardless of whether the value goes up or down.
"you could tax all their income at 100%"
how? you can't target them specifically
A point for would-be originalists. There is some historical evidence to support the notion the Direct Tax clause was included as a means to prevent taxation of the value of slaves. That may also explain why the subject remains confusing. Delegates to the convention frequently were less than forthright about discussing questions related to favorable treatment for the slave institution—too many impediments to ratification if stuff like that erupted into open controversy.
"but they made available direct taxes that are not geographically biased in wartime. "
We are always at war.
Here's a neat look at some public infrastructure being built in the U.S. prior to 1913 . . . all adequately funded without any income tax for most of the nation's history.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8PrRW6uG1B/