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.

  • @20hzservers
    link
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think commenting on Lemmy all day is a mental health issue and I’m worried for you.

    • @SCB
      link
      -11 year ago

      That’s weird.

      • @20hzservers
        link
        51 year ago

        You read like a chat gpt bot told to be slightly antagonistic to every comment you read.

        • @Sparlock
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s weird /s

            • @Sparlock
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              I’m here to help and provide information or assistance on a wide range of topics. If something seems weird or if you have a specific question or topic you’d like to discuss, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to assist you!

              –ChatSCB

              • @20hzservers
                link
                21 year ago

                Lol I’m following him around and postin this under his comments. Thank you.