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.

  • spaceghotiOP
    link
    English
    57 months ago

    I’m sorry. Is it biased because you don’t agree with it, or because you didn’t read it to see how they’re sourcing their information?

    • perfect brains
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      @spaceghoti

      it is obvious from the first few sentences that the publication is trying to propagandize the reader rather than inform them

      on the face of it, I would disagree with it but those first few sentences betrayed it

      • spaceghotiOP
        link
        English
        57 months ago

        Ah, it doesn’t fit your ideological bias, therefore it must not be worth reading. Understood.