• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Thinking of moving? Your blue state may soon charge you an exit tax

teekay99

teekay99

Well-known member
Donator
Member of the Year
Opinion from Fox News:
www.foxnews.com

Thinking of moving? Your blue state may soon charge you an exit tax

How does California solve its massive deficit problem and create a new tax scheme? They tax people and businesses who want to move from the state.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I have a Constitutional question about this. If State A implements an "exit tax" that disrupts your ability to relocate your business or yourself (as a private individual) to any other state, does this pose any Constitutional issues?
  • Does it constitute an illegal taking?
  • Does it run afoul of the Interstate Commerce clause in some manner (if it is a business)?
  • Any other Constitutional concerns I am not thinking of?
 
teekay99 said:
Opinion from Fox News:
www.foxnews.com

Thinking of moving? Your blue state may soon charge you an exit tax

How does California solve its massive deficit problem and create a new tax scheme? They tax people and businesses who want to move from the state.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I have a Constitutional question about this. If State A implements an "exit tax" that disrupts your ability to relocate your business or yourself (as a private individual) to any other state, does this pose any Constitutional issues?
  • Does it constitute an illegal taking?
  • Does it run afoul of the Interstate Commerce clause in some manner (if it is a business)?
  • Any other Constitutional concerns I am not thinking of?
Click to expand...
Supreme court would probably like to have a say on this.
 
teekay99 said:
Opinion from Fox News:
www.foxnews.com

Thinking of moving? Your blue state may soon charge you an exit tax

How does California solve its massive deficit problem and create a new tax scheme? They tax people and businesses who want to move from the state.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I have a Constitutional question about this. If State A implements an "exit tax" that disrupts your ability to relocate your business or yourself (as a private individual) to any other state, does this pose any Constitutional issues?
  • Does it constitute an illegal taking?
  • Does it run afoul of the Interstate Commerce clause in some manner (if it is a business)?
  • Any other Constitutional concerns I am not thinking of?
Click to expand...
It's not going to work.

Just for the same reason the GOP failed to pass laws that fine & jail people who go out of state to get a abortion or GOP failing to pass laws to ban the abortion pill from being mailed into their state.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
I don't see how it is Constitutional.
Click to expand...
I think the same but we've been surprised by some previous rulings from SCOTUS. For example, I thought being forced to buy health care coverage was Unconstitutional, but Chief Disappointment... oops I mean Chief Justice John Roberts thought differently...
 
Last edited:
teekay99 said:
I think the same but we've been surprised by some previous rulings from SCOTUS. For example, I thought being forced to buy health care coverage was Unconstitutional, but Chief Disappointment... oops I mean Chief Justice John Roberts thought differently...
Click to expand...
Again. If GOP states where unable to pass laws ticketing and jailing people who go out of their state to get a abortion & they also failed to ban the abortion pill being mailed to their state WITHOUT SCOTUS picking it up and lower courts finding it overwhelming unconstitutional.

Sincerely doubt this plan to tax people leaving states is going to go anywhere or get any real traction. Much like similar laws GOP tried to push as mentioned above not to long ago. It's all 100% hot air.
 
teekay99 said:
I thought being forced to buy health care coverage was Unconstitutional
Click to expand...
The legal theory is not that you are being forced to buy health insurance, but you are being taxed if you don't. And the Federal Government has the right to tax.

It didn't help that Obama told the public that it was not a tax but told the Court that it was a tax. So Obama lied to someone in order to get it passed.
 
DarkNoon said:
Again. If GOP states where unable to pass laws ticketing and jailing people who go out of their state to get a abortion
Click to expand...
The States do not have that right. (We will ignore the fact that abortion is Federally prohibited by the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment.)
DarkNoon said:
& they also failed to ban the abortion pill being mailed to their state WITHOUT SCOTUS picking it up and lower courts finding it overwhelming unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
States do have that right, actually. The lower courts were wrong. A State can ban something coming into it. I know of no Constitutional prohibition against that.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The legal theory is not that you are being forced to buy health insurance, but you are being taxed if you don't. And the Federal Government has the right to tax.

It didn't help that Obama told the public that it was not a tax but told the Court that it was a tax. So Obama lied to someone in order to get it passed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understood the underlying basis for CJ Roberts' decision. To me this seemed a bit like judicial activism. I'd have to check the oral arguments presented to the Court (as I am not familiar with them), but if the government never argued that it was a tax or never presented evidence that the law was passed under Congress' taxing authority, it seems to me CJ Roberts' decision was a solution in search of an argument. Or maybe he just wanted to fit in with the more "stylish" (to borrow a term from Dirty Harry) liberal justices on the Court...
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
States do have that right, actually. The lower courts were wrong. A State can ban something coming into it. I know of no Constitutional prohibition against that.
Click to expand...
Agree. States have this right. An excellent example of this currently in effect are dry counties that prohibit certain types of alcohol sales, possession, or transit.
 
Last edited:
During a state of emergency can't a governor order curfews? i.e. measures to curtail the movement of citizens, such as roadblocks.
 
What you’re all forgetting is that the state of cali can make this assessment on a ind or business state taxes. You will pay it because it is part of your states assessed tax bill. Or we seize any properties put liens on your accounts.
Is it correct hell know will it stick 50/50 chance it does. They will call it the FU2ATHYRIO tax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top