The estimable R.R. Reno’s wit is as dry as his martinis, so it is hard for me to know how seriously he meant the proposal in his “On the Square” essay ” Martinis and Taxes ” today, for a federal wealth tax. His friend, however, led him astray by invoking the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment as an obstacle to such a tax. Not so; there is no such thing as a tax, otherwise valid, that runs afoul of the clause that says that a taking of private property for public use must be compensated—else we would find that the government is disabled entirely from undertaking any kind of taxation (hmm, wait a minute . . . )
No, the very real problem with a wealth tax is that it would have to be “apportioned” geographically by state, according to the latest census. That’s because it is a “direct” tax on a person’s property, not on the transactions in which he engages, as is the case of the income tax. And this apportionment requirement creates a real nightmare, as I explained at NRO ‘s Bench Memos last month when the idea of a wealth tax appeared in a New York Times op-ed . The apportionment requirement may be idiotic, and its historical origins obscure, but it’s very real, and there is no way a wealth tax could be made to work without backfiring.
We launched the First Things 2023 Year-End Campaign to keep articles like the one you just read free of charge to everyone.
Measured in dollars and cents, this doesn't make sense. But consider who is able to read First Things: pastors and priests, college students and professors, young professionals and families. Last year, we had more than three million unique readers on firstthings.com.
Informing and inspiring these people is why First Things doesn't only think in terms of dollars and cents. And it's why we urgently need your year-end support.
Will you give today?
