Law Dork looks into the timeline of a major tax case for next term & Alito's three recent WSJ opinion page appearances — and comes away with questions.
I agree that he should recuse. On the case itself, I am of two minds, though it does only apply to gains of a particular form of "controlled foreign corporation." But as a prelude to a general "wealth tax" it worried me. As someone sitting in a house that has increased enormously in value simply because Big Tech and Big Salaries moved to town years after I bought it, I'm a bit leery of taxing unrealized capital gains. I'm already paying an obscene amount of property tax.
However, I can see creating a tax bracket higher than the current top one which would TAX just the usual income but for which you would qualify because of a humungous number of unrealized capital gains. As I am nowhere NEAR the current top tax bracket, that would make me feel warm and cozy 😉😉
Thus, if you made 10 million in taxable income in a year, you would be currently taxed at 37%. Under my scheme, there would be a higher bracket (say 60%) which you would only be required to use if you had say a billion or more in unrealized gains. Still paying the tax on 10 million. Just at a higher rate.
But I am far from an expert in tax law, including its constitutional parameters.
I feel like the real issue here is with property tax- which as it works right now, it's just a gentrification machine used to 'expunge' people who got in early but aren't 'actively' participating in shareholder capitalism enough to afford to fit-in with the new occupying force.
see: detroit and how it was weaponized against numerous minorities so developers could steal land
not sure I understand your point. If you mean that folks like me who are operating off a basis primarily incurred in 1971, yes, they could well be taxed out of their home. Luckily that isn't happening to me, yet. My state doesn't have an income tax so ALL funding is from property and sales taxes (the latter at 10.1% on all but most food).
I still vote for levies for such things as schools and homeless help, since I am lucky to have a roof at all and since I don't think our society can survive without good education for everyone. I do tend to vote against levies for freakin' sports stadiums.
I am with you 100% about not funding freakin' sports stadiums with public money. They are ego boosters for billionairs and shuld be paid for by private money. They appear to be bread and circuses to keep people's minds off the fact we don't seem to have enough money to fund pubic education or to feed children and the home less. I have nothing against sports as such, but to see poor children going hungry while public money is spent for the benefit of the wealthy is terrible.
Many Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have been interviewed by prominent lawyers at bar association functions, other legal gatherings, and for publication, without anyone ever suggesting that was grounds for recusal. This is a nothingburger.
Public events happen, sure, although I would question how often a lawyer with a pending case purports to “interview” a sitting justice — and would be open to a discussion of whether that is proper (for either the lawyer or the justice). Regardless of that, though, that is not what appears to have happened here, which is why I wrote carefully to explain it — in both the first and last sections.
I agree that he should recuse. On the case itself, I am of two minds, though it does only apply to gains of a particular form of "controlled foreign corporation." But as a prelude to a general "wealth tax" it worried me. As someone sitting in a house that has increased enormously in value simply because Big Tech and Big Salaries moved to town years after I bought it, I'm a bit leery of taxing unrealized capital gains. I'm already paying an obscene amount of property tax.
However, I can see creating a tax bracket higher than the current top one which would TAX just the usual income but for which you would qualify because of a humungous number of unrealized capital gains. As I am nowhere NEAR the current top tax bracket, that would make me feel warm and cozy 😉😉
Thus, if you made 10 million in taxable income in a year, you would be currently taxed at 37%. Under my scheme, there would be a higher bracket (say 60%) which you would only be required to use if you had say a billion or more in unrealized gains. Still paying the tax on 10 million. Just at a higher rate.
But I am far from an expert in tax law, including its constitutional parameters.
I feel like the real issue here is with property tax- which as it works right now, it's just a gentrification machine used to 'expunge' people who got in early but aren't 'actively' participating in shareholder capitalism enough to afford to fit-in with the new occupying force.
see: detroit and how it was weaponized against numerous minorities so developers could steal land
not sure I understand your point. If you mean that folks like me who are operating off a basis primarily incurred in 1971, yes, they could well be taxed out of their home. Luckily that isn't happening to me, yet. My state doesn't have an income tax so ALL funding is from property and sales taxes (the latter at 10.1% on all but most food).
I still vote for levies for such things as schools and homeless help, since I am lucky to have a roof at all and since I don't think our society can survive without good education for everyone. I do tend to vote against levies for freakin' sports stadiums.
I am with you 100% about not funding freakin' sports stadiums with public money. They are ego boosters for billionairs and shuld be paid for by private money. They appear to be bread and circuses to keep people's minds off the fact we don't seem to have enough money to fund pubic education or to feed children and the home less. I have nothing against sports as such, but to see poor children going hungry while public money is spent for the benefit of the wealthy is terrible.
Many Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have been interviewed by prominent lawyers at bar association functions, other legal gatherings, and for publication, without anyone ever suggesting that was grounds for recusal. This is a nothingburger.
Public events happen, sure, although I would question how often a lawyer with a pending case purports to “interview” a sitting justice — and would be open to a discussion of whether that is proper (for either the lawyer or the justice). Regardless of that, though, that is not what appears to have happened here, which is why I wrote carefully to explain it — in both the first and last sections.
Lock.
Him.
Up.
It’s a just(is) a cranky old man waving his gavel, screaming at the young in’s, to stay off his law(n).
Do we know why the last Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not sign the letter?
It's Jon Ossoff, should a constituent care to follow-up....