The plaintiffs’ arguments in Moore v. United States have little basis in law — unless you think that a list of long-ago-discarded laissez-faire decisions from the early 20th century remain good law. And a decision favoring these plaintiffs could blow a huge hole in the federal budget. While no Warren-style wealth tax is on the books, the Moore plaintiffs do challenge an existing tax that is expected to raise $340 billion over the course of a decade.

But Republicans also hold six seats on the nation’s highest Court, so there is some risk that a majority of the justices will accept the plaintiffs’ dubious legal arguments. And if they do so, they could do considerable damage to the government’s ability to fund itself.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hmm. Maybe we shouldn’t ask wealthy people who take money from even wealthier “donors” to make decisions about how much we tax wealthy people.

    • Goferking0
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      how dare you be anti free speech - - court who is enjoying that money