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.

  • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the book is titled “Imagine What America Would Look Like if a Single Shitbag Convinced Republicans to Vote Against Every Tax Increase for Thirty Years”, then yes, yes he is.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We are long overdue to cut out these middlemen in our representation. Not saying I know how, but it seems like even a small amount of power corrupts absolutely.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Step 1. Reallocate our Netflix subscriptions to lobby congress for free Netflix.

        Step 2. With free Netflix and a new lobbying powers get other shit done.