On Sunday, Jonathan Turley posted an article about the Founding Fathers and how they would have responded to the idea of a wealth tax.

The article states:

Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the bizarre claim of Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that the Framers would have supported wealth taxes, including the proposed Billionaire’s Tax. It is a claim that seeks to mask the economically unwise with the historically unfounded. The Framers sought to protect property from legislative redistributive impulses. James Madison wrote that the bicameral system, and particularly the Senate, “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” That does not sound like an ally of Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.

…Was James Madison the Zohran Mamdani of his time? Gavin Newsom appears to think so. In joining the growing number of Democratic leaders supporting a wealth tax, the California governor claimed that the U.S. Constitution and our Founders were all about wealth distribution: “The system America’s founders built,” he said, “was designed to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands, but we have allowed that concentration to happen anyway, slowly, in plain sight, over decades.”

The only problem with this argument is that it is utterly and demonstrably false. The Madisonian democracy is designed to avoid the concentration of political power, not the concentration of wealth.

The article notes:

The Constitution not only protects property, but was later amended to allow for income taxes rather than wealth taxes. Far from supporting a wealth tax, the constitutional system referenced by Mr. Newsom makes a federal wealth tax unconstitutional.

The article concludes:

Nevertheless, wealth taxes make for great politics. What is concerning is that, in addition to a wealth tax, Democratic leaders like Ms. Warren are pledging to pack the Supreme Court if they retake power. A packed court with an insistent liberal majority would let the Democrats push through measures that would otherwise be declared unconstitutional, including a wealth tax.

Congress could then gradually lower the level of wealth needed to trigger the tax, opening up the homes and estates of citizens as an untapped reservoir of money for the taking.

“You’re next” could then apply not just to office holders but to property owners in a push to redistribute wealth.

That strategy may well unfold in coming years, but it will be the realization of a Mamdanian, not a Madisonian, system.

One of the unintended consequences of a wealth tax is that it interferes with the desire to become wealthy. Why acquire wealth of the government is going to take it from you? As stated in the article, a wealth tax will eventually apply to the non-wealthy and wipe out the middle class. The middle class is the backbone of a free republic.