Direct Taxation of All Wealth and Property
Moore v. United States and the Great Reset Agenda
The impending legal precedent that could be set by Moore v. U.S. has sparked intense debates over the potential for direct taxation on all forms of wealth and property. As the United States grapples with the implications of this decision, it is essential to consider how such a tax policy aligns with broader global initiatives, notably the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Great Reset Agenda. This agenda, encapsulated by the controversial assertion that "you will own nothing and be happy," has raised concerns about the erosion of individual property rights and the role of governments in shaping the future of private ownership.
The Case
In 2017, Congress implemented significant changes to the taxation of foreign earnings through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Among these changes was the introduction of deemed repatriation under Section 965, a one-time inclusion of accumulated foreign earnings into U.S. taxable income. The TCJA aimed to address the uncompetitiveness of the previous tax system and encouraged the repatriation of earnings held offshore. Moore v. United States, a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court, questions the constitutionality of this policy.
The plaintiffs in Moore v. United States argue that the deemed repatriation tax is unconstitutional as it applies to "unrealized" income and retroactively taxes past earnings, contradicting the 16th Amendment's requirement that income must be clearly realized before taxation. Depending on the Court's ruling, substantial portions of the U.S. tax base may become legally uncertain, risking significant revenue implications.
The Supreme Court's decision could impact various taxes on foreign earnings, potentially including global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), Subpart F, and the corporate alternative minimum tax. Three potential scenarios are possible:
the Court strikes down all or part of deemed repatriation
it narrows the ruling to pass-through firms and individuals
or it broadly challenges the constitutionality of major corporate tax provisions
If the Supreme Court strikes down the entire deemed repatriation, it is estimated to reduce government revenue by $346 billion over 10 years. A narrower ruling affecting pass-through firms and individuals could reduce revenue by $3.5 billion. A broader decision challenging GILTI, Subpart F, and the corporate alternative minimum tax could lead to revenue reductions of $352.3 billion, $77.8 billion, and $247.8 billion, respectively.
The most “extreme” outcome, striking down taxes on all undistributed business earnings, could reduce federal revenue by nearly $5.7 trillion over 10 years, a dire outcome in the government’s eyes. A ruling against deemed repatriation's constitutionality could also limit the U.S.'s ability to implement Pillar Two, particularly its Income Inclusion Rule. Therefore, the Moore case carries significant implications for U.S. tax policy, potentially invalidating existing policies and influencing future ones.
But if the court doesn’t strike down taxes on undistributed earnings (i.e. capital gains without realized income), then it opens up a Pandora’s Box of assessing taxes on virtually all wealth and property, such as the increase in value on your home. Let’s say you bought your home for $200,000, and after a few years, the market value increases to $300,000. If the court doesn’t strike down the principle of taxing an unrealized gain, then the IRS could assess you income taxes on $100,000 even though you haven’t sold your home! You would have to come up with this money, not out of a portion of the proceeds of a sale on which you made a profit, but from some other method of income generation, which has also already been taxed as income, such as a job or sale of other property.
The Risk of Moore v. United States Facilitating the Great Reset
While the discussion on Moore v. United States primarily revolves around the constitutionality of deemed repatriation taxes and its potential impact on U.S. tax policy, it's important to note that issues related to taxation and fiscal policies can intersect with broader economic concerns, including the potential impact on inflation, property values, and the entire foundation of private property rights.
Inflation is broadly defined as a general increase in prices, eroding the purchasing power of a currency (albeit the stricter definition is an increase in the currency supply itself). As the value of currency declines with inflation, the nominal prices of goods and services increase, including real estate. This can result in a situation where property values denominated in a depreciating currency appear to rise, even if their values vis-à-vis other goods and services remain the same or decrease.
Here's a brief exploration of how the government & central bank could use the outcome of Moore v. U.S. and inflationary policy to outright confiscate ALL private property:
Currency Devaluation and Inflation: If the government & central bank pursue policies that result in the devaluation of the national currency, it can contribute to inflation. Factors such as excessive currency supply, deficit spending, and economic instability can lead to a decrease in the currency's value.
Impact on Property Values: As the general price level rises as a result of currency devaluation, the nominal value of real property (real estate, stocks, collectibles, vehicles, precious metals, etc) increases. However, this increase in property value does not reflect a genuine appreciation in real terms; rather, it is a reflection of the declining value of the currency.
Confiscation Effect: In a situation where inflation is rapid and substantial, individuals will witness a significant rise in the market value of their property. However, the real purchasing power of those property values won’t necessarily increase, leading to an erosion of actual wealth. Moreover, gains in market value without actually selling the property cannot contribute to economic gain either, as the wealth increase is only on paper until realized. However, costs such as maintenance, storage, property taxes, insurance, and security may increase without a concomitant increase in income.
Taxation and Wealth Transfer: Governments may then use income taxes on unrealized gains as a means of generating revenue from inflation itself rather than from economic activity. And when individuals cannot come up with the cash to cover such assessments, they’ll be forced to sell their property to pay the tax or have the property auctioned off against their will to pay the tax. And under such a scheme, it will largely be the government itself or its cronies who will have the means to purchase the property, leading to a form of wealth transfer from property owners to the government.
It’s the end goal of the Great Reset Agenda to transfer all private property to the government and for the people to depend on government services to take care of their needs and desires. Advocates of the Great Reset argue for a paradigm shift away from traditional notions of ownership, advocating for a more communal and equitable distribution of resources. Direct taxation on all wealth and property, as permitted by the government’s argument in Moore v. U.S., aligns with the principles of the Great Reset by providing the mechanism to redistribute wealth and address perceived inequalities.
Proponents argue that such a tax policy could serve as a tool to realize the Great Reset's vision of a more inclusive and sustainable global economy. By directly taxing the wealthiest individuals and redistributing resources, it aligns with the agenda's goal of reducing economic disparities and fostering social cohesion. However, this perspective raises significant concerns about the potential consequences for individual liberties and the broader implications for societal well-being.
The Constitutional Framework
The United States Constitution provides the foundational framework for the nation's governance, including the allocation of powers and limitations on government authority. The relevant clauses in the Constitution concerning taxation are crucial to understanding the scope and legality of unapportioned direct taxation.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises," with the stipulation that these levies must be uniform throughout the country. However, the Constitution also introduces the Apportionment Clause in Article I, Section 9, which states that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Historically, the requirement of apportionment has been interpreted to mean that any direct tax must be distributed among the states based on their respective populations. Unapportioned direct taxation, therefore, raises constitutional questions about the adherence to this fundamental principle.
Arguments in favor of the constitutionality of unapportioned direct taxation center around a broad interpretation of the Taxation Clause in Article I, Section 8. Proponents contend that the framers intended to grant Congress the flexibility to adapt tax policies to changing economic circumstances, as they did when they imposed the Income Tax on all revenues, not just profits. They argue that the strict requirements of apportionment may hinder the government's ability to address pressing issues such as wealth inequality effectively.
On the opposing side, critics assert that the Apportionment Clause was deliberately included to prevent the imposition of onerous and arbitrary taxes on specific individuals or regions. They emphasize the framers' concerns about protecting individual liberties and preventing an overreaching government. Unapportioned direct taxation, they argue, undermines this fundamental safeguard provided by our Founding Fathers, who after all rebelled against Britain largely over unfair taxation.
The Historical Context
Examining the historical context sheds light on the framers' intent and the prevailing economic and political considerations of the time. The Constitution was crafted in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, and the framers were acutely aware of the dangers of unchecked government power. The Apportionment Clause was included as a safeguard against potential abuses of the taxing authority, ensuring that any direct taxes would be distributed fairly among the states.
Moreover, historical precedents, such as the failure of the Articles of Confederation, influenced the framers' decisions to create a more robust federal government with limited but defined powers. The Apportionment Clause reflects this delicate balance between granting necessary authority to the federal government and safeguarding the rights of the states and individuals.
The Impact on Federalism and State Autonomy
The issue of unapportioned direct taxation extends beyond constitutional interpretation; it also has profound implications for federalism and state autonomy. Critics argue that allowing unapportioned direct taxation could upset the delicate balance of power between the federal government and the states. The fear is that it could empower the central government to impose significant financial burdens on individual citizens, diminishing the influence and autonomy of state governments.
Furthermore, proponents of state sovereignty assert that the Apportionment Clause serves as a critical check on federal authority, ensuring that the states retain a measure of control over their fiscal policies. Allowing unapportioned direct taxation, they argue, risks tipping the scales in favor of an overreaching federal government, undermining the principles of federalism embedded in the Constitution.
Impact on Individual Property Rights
The assertion in the Great Reset Agenda that "you will own nothing and be happy" has fueled fears of a dystopian future where private ownership is systematically dismantled. While the proponents argue that this shift is necessary for addressing global challenges such as climate change and income inequality, critics view it as an infringement on individual property rights. Moore v. U.S.'s enabling of direct taxation on all wealth and property is seen by some as a step towards realizing this controversial vision.
The direct taxation model raises questions about the extent to which individuals can truly own and control their assets. Opponents argue that such a system, by subjecting all forms of wealth to government scrutiny and taxation, could lead to a de facto erosion of property rights. The concern is that citizens may effectively lose control over their accumulated wealth, with the government wielding unprecedented authority over personal assets.
Economic Implications and the "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" Paradigm
The economic implications of direct taxation on all wealth and property, within the framework of the Great Reset Agenda, are significant. Proponents argue that such a policy can contribute to a more equitable distribution of resources, aligning with the agenda's emphasis on social and economic inclusivity. However, the potential consequences for economic growth, innovation, and individual incentives have been fiercely debated.
Critics contend that the "you will own nothing and be happy" paradigm, when coupled with direct taxation, could dampen entrepreneurial spirit and innovation. The fear of losing a significant portion of accumulated wealth may discourage risk-taking behavior, leading to a more “conservative” economic landscape. Moreover, concerns about capital flight, where wealthy individuals relocate to jurisdictions with more favorable tax environments, could result in a net loss for the domestic economy.
Direct Taxation, Property Rights, and Economic Depression
The fabric of a thriving economy is woven with the threads of private property rights, which historically have been recognized as essential for incentivizing investment, fostering innovation, and driving economic growth. The potential erosion of these rights through direct taxation on all wealth and property, as enabled by a ruling for the government in Moore v. U.S., raises serious concerns about the vitality of the nation's economic landscape.
One of the primary risks associated with diminishing private property rights is the potential for economic depression. As individuals perceive a loss of control over their assets and face the prospect of significant wealth depletion through taxation, there is a real danger of reduced consumer confidence and spending. This, in turn, can lead to decreased demand for goods and services, stalling economic growth and potentially plunging the nation into a prolonged period of economic depression.
The Link Between Property Rights and Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship, a driving force behind economic dynamism, is intricately linked to the protection of private property rights. The prospect of direct taxation on all forms of wealth may deter entrepreneurs from taking risks and investing in new ventures. The fear of losing a substantial portion of accumulated wealth diminishes the incentives for individuals to innovate, create jobs, and contribute to the overall economic vitality.
In a society where property rights are weakened, entrepreneurial endeavors may be stifled, leading to a lack of diversity in the marketplace and a slowdown in the development of new industries. This not only impedes economic progress but also limits opportunities for individuals to pursue their passions and contribute to the collective prosperity.
The Social Decay Conundrum
Beyond the economic sphere, the erosion of private property rights carries the potential for social decay. The foundational belief in property ownership as a cornerstone of personal responsibility, accountability, and self-determination is deeply ingrained in the American ethos. The shift towards a paradigm where individuals should "own nothing and be happy" challenges these core values and may contribute to a sense of disillusionment and societal unrest. Typically, owning nothing does not contribute to happiness because it is through ownership that we secure our self-determination.
Private property has historically served as a means of wealth accumulation, allowing individuals to invest in their communities, support charitable causes, and engage in philanthropy. As the prospect of direct taxation looms over all forms of wealth, the motivation for such contributions may diminish, leading to a reduction in civic engagement and community support. This, in turn, could contribute to a breakdown of social cohesion and the deterioration of the fabric that binds communities together.
The Psychological Impact on Individuals
The assertion that individuals will "own nothing and be happy" presupposes a profound shift in societal values and individual aspirations. However, the psychological impact of potentially losing control over one's assets and the accompanying uncertainties may have far-reaching consequences.
Studies suggest that a sense of ownership and control over one's possessions is linked to psychological well-being. The prospect of direct taxation on all wealth may lead to heightened stress and anxiety, impacting the mental health of individuals who perceive a loss of autonomy. This, coupled with potential economic challenges, could contribute to a society grappling with heightened levels of discontent and malaise.
Administrative Challenges and Bureaucratic Expansion
The implementation of direct taxation on all wealth and property, as envisioned by the government in Moore v. U.S. and in alignment with the Great Reset Agenda, poses significant administrative challenges. Valuing diverse forms of wealth, from traditional assets like real estate and financial holdings to intangible assets like intellectual property, requires a sophisticated and robust system. This could lead to an expansion of bureaucratic structures and increased government intervention in the private financial affairs of citizens. And of course, this leads to the potential for significant corruption and abuse of power.
The potential for heightened surveillance and scrutiny of personal assets raises concerns about privacy and the limits of government intrusion. As tax authorities delve into the intricate details of individuals' wealth portfolios, the delicate balance between the need for revenue and the protection of individual liberties becomes increasingly precarious.
Social Ramifications and the Challenge of Happiness
The assertion that "you will own nothing and be happy" encapsulates a vision of a society where happiness is detached from material possessions. While proponents argue that this paradigm shift is necessary for sustainable living and global well-being, critics question the feasibility and desirability of such a vision which is directly at odds with biological human nature.
Direct taxation on all wealth and property, in line with the Great Reset Agenda, raises questions about the societal impact of redistributive policies. Will citizens genuinely find happiness in a world where individual ownership is minimized, and wealth is more evenly distributed? The complex interplay between economic structures, individual aspirations, and societal values must be carefully considered to understand the potential social ramifications of such a transformative agenda.
Historical Lessons on the Abandonment of Private Property Rights
Examining the historical perspective from failed socialist countries provides valuable insights into the potential consequences of significant economic and governmental shifts. While it's fair to acknowledge that socialism exists on a spectrum, and not all implementations have led to the same level of failure (yet), studying instances where socialist experiments faced challenges can help inform discussions about the potential pitfalls of drastic economic and political changes. In the context of the United States and the potential for unapportioned direct taxation on wealth and property, historical lessons from failed socialist countries offer cautionary tales about the importance of balance, individual incentives, and economic sustainability.
The Soviet Union (1922-1991): The Soviet Union, under a centrally planned socialist economy, experienced significant challenges that eventually contributed to its collapse. The lack of economic incentives, coupled with excessive government control, led to inefficiencies, widespread corruption, and a stagnant economy. The absence of individual property rights and a competitive market hindered innovation and entrepreneurship.
Venezuela (1999-present): In more recent times, Venezuela has faced severe economic and political crises, with many attributing these challenges to the implementation of socialist policies. The nationalization of industries, wealth redistribution, and price controls led to economic distortions, hyperinflation, and a collapse in living standards. The erosion of property rights and an overreliance on state intervention showcased the potential dangers of excessive government control over economic affairs.
Cuba (1959-present): Cuba's socialist experiment, particularly under Fidel Castro, has been marked by centralized control, limited economic freedoms, and restrictions on private enterprise. While Cuba has achieved certain successes in areas like healthcare and education, the lack of property rights and economic liberties has hindered overall development such that the country has stagnated at a level equivalent to the 1950s in most areas and the people face constant fear of severe punishment if they step out of line.
North Korea (1948-present): North Korea provides an extreme example of a socialist regime with absolute government control. The lack of property rights and economic freedoms has resulted in isolation, poverty, lack of basic necessities for the population, general totalitarian policies, and widespread death.
Eastern Bloc Countries (1947-1989): The countries of the Eastern Bloc, including East Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, faced economic stagnation under socialist regimes. Central planning and lack of property rights contributed to drastic inefficiencies and a significantly lower standard of living compared to their Western counterparts.
These historical examples (and there are many more we could include) underscore the importance of considering the potential consequences of drastic economic and governmental changes. Lessons from failed socialist countries emphasize the need for an approach to government that respects individual liberties, incentivizes economic activity, and maintains a competitive market environment crucial to avoiding the pitfalls that socialist experiments have encountered in the past.
Conclusion: Balancing the Scales of Justice and Liberty
As the implications of Moore v. U.S. unfold and the discourse around direct taxation on all wealth and property continues, the alignment with the World Economic Forum's Great Reset Agenda adds another layer of complexity to the debate. Balancing the scales of justice, economic equity, and individual liberty requires careful consideration of the potential consequences for society as a whole.
Justices, policymakers, legal scholars, and citizens alike must carefully consider the constitutional implications of unapportioned direct taxation and why our Founding Fathers specifically rejected it. Striking a delicate balance between addressing contemporary challenges and upholding the principles of limited government, individual liberties, and federalism will be crucial in navigating the constitutional crossroads laid bare by Moore v. U.S.
The legacy of Moore v. U.S. and its intersection with global initiatives like the Great Reset will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of taxation policies and influence the broader socio-economic landscape in the United States and around the world. As we grapple with these challenges, finding a path forward that reconciles competing values remains a paramount task for those shaping the future of governance, taxation, and individual liberty and self-determination. Making the wrong move now will likely plunge the United States and the world into a dystopian nightmare of tyranny and despair.