On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Story Is,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) said that he voted against tariffs that have raised costs, while his Democratic opponent “voted for a gas tax increase that has more than doubled the gas tax

The post Kiley: I Voted Against Tariffs That Raise Costs, My Opponent Voted for California Gas Tax That Raised Prices appeared first on Breitbart.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of Bloomberg’s “Balance of Power,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) said that, in California, “We rely on a small number of people to provide a lot of tax revenue to the state, and that brings with it volatility. So,

The post Dem Rep. Kamlager-Dove: CA’s Tax System ‘Very Volatile’ Because It Relies on Small, Heavily-Taxed Group, Should Be ‘More Equal’ appeared first on Breitbart.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of Bloomberg’s “Balance of Power,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) responded to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considering leaving the state over a possible wealth tax by stating that there are questions about having a one-time tax, but “it’s disappointing

The post Dem Rep. Kamlager-Dove on Zuckerberg Considering Leaving CA Over Wealth Tax: Need Federal Rules So People ‘Can’t Cherry-Pick States’ appeared first on Breitbart.

If you have to pay a regular fee to maintain control and use of a home or other parcel of property, do you really own it? Or are you just renting it from whoever collects the money? That's the question behind a growing movement against property taxes, which is winning support across the country and may see its next big test in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that would significantly trim taxes on owner-occupied homes.

'Property Is the Foundation of Liberty'—and a Big Source of Tax Revenue

Advocates of reform understandably champion the inviolability of private property, which is threatened by continuously rising levies. Opponents predictably include people who fear reduced government revenues, but also those who worry that cutting property taxes will shift power to state governments at the cost of local autonomy.

"Property is the foundation of liberty," argues economist Vance Ginn. "It represents the right to the product of voluntary exchange, investment, and saving—not a privilege granted by government. To tax property again every year after it has been bought with after-tax income is to deny genuine ownership. Property taxes operate like an annual wealth tax or unrealized capital-gains tax, applied regardless of income or ability to pay."

Opposing Ginn's argument in the debate is the Tax Foundation's Jared Walczak, who is not so much a fan of property taxes as a believer that they suck less than the alternatives.

"Spending restraint can reduce property tax burdens," argues Walczak. "But with property taxes accounting for 70 percent of local tax collections nationwide and upwards of 90 percent in some states, any discussion of property tax elimination must grapple with revenue alternatives."

"It is axiomatic that whatever you tax, you get less of," he adds. "Taxing income means less income-producing labor and investment, for instance. But because land is an immobile asset, taxing property does less to distort market decisions than taxing income or even sales."

Walczak also points out that while property taxes are usually imposed by local governments, most alternatives to property taxes come at the state level. That would move power further up the political food chain, away from the property owners worrying about their tax bills.

To this, Ginn responds that governments at all levels cost more than they should and that "the moral and fiscal failure of property taxes lies not only in how the money is raised, but also in how much government spends."

That means the debate over property taxes isn't just a struggle between those who want to trim the state's take and those who prefer larger government, but also between anti-tax activists and their frequent allies among advocates of local power. In a piece this week on the groundswell against property taxes, Politico's Liam Dillon notes that "the uprising's most pitched battles are being fought in Red States where the issue has emerged as yet another dividing line on the right."

Localities Are Dependent on Taxing Property

The debate over property taxes is fierce partially because governments have come to rely so heavily on them. "In fiscal year 2023, property taxes comprised 28.9 percent of total state and local tax collections in the United States, more than any other source of tax revenue, despite being levied almost exclusively at the local (not state) level," Janelle Fritts wrote for the Tax Foundation.

Property taxes in the U.S. range from roughly half a percent to just under 2 percent of assessed home value. States that rely most heavily on them, like New Hampshire (1.5 percent in 2024) and Texas (1.4 percent in 2024), also tend to leave a lot of government responsibility in local hands that might be exercised at the state level elsewhere. It's worth noting that Cato's Freedom in the 50 States ranks New Hampshire as having the second least burdensome tax regime among states, with Texas in fourth place.

The lowest taxed states in property terms are Alabama (0.37 percent in 2024), Arizona (0.48 percent), Hawaii (0.29 percent), and Utah (0.48 percent). Some states, such as Illinois (1.88 percent in 2024) and New Jersey (also 1.88 percent), tax the hell out of many things to support large and intrusive governments. Hawaii, despite low property taxes, is ranked as the most tax-burdened state by Cato.

As mentioned above, economists tend to like property taxes because they are efficient, minimally distort economic decisions, and empower localities relative to state and federal authorities. But as Politico's Dillon emphasizes, "everyone who is not an economist seems to hate property taxes."

Homeowners Don't Like the Insecurity That Comes With Property Tax Bills

Property taxes rise with assessed property valuations that homeowners have no control over, as the market shifts with supply and demand. They require what feels an awful lot like an annual rent payment to keep a roof over people's heads many already paid for. That reduces the sense of security that owners feel in their homes, since their habitation remains conditional on meeting local authorities' demands. The bite of sales taxes can be reduced by buying less, and income taxes are dependent on earning paychecks, but property taxes (with some local exceptions) come due no matter what.

Soaring property valuations in recent years drove property tax bills higher for Americans who did nothing but remain at their established addresses, though localities can and sometimes do adjust tax rates to offset rising values. USA Today reported that "between 2019 and 2023, the median value of annual property taxes increased nearly 25%." That has energized the movement to cut or abolish the taxes.

Efforts to reform property taxes have been effective in more than a dozen states, according to Governing. Most of these efforts involved reducing taxes, though eyes are currently on Florida where Amendment 3, a proposed change to the state constitution, would incrementally raise the homestead exemption to $250,000. It also would require "the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value," effectively abolishing property taxes on owner-occupied dwellings.

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires 60 percent of votes to pass. Polling shows more support than opposition, but not necessarily at the supermajority level necessary for victory.

According to the Tax Foundation, in Florida, "the statewide average sales tax rate would have to rise from 7.02 to 15.34 percent to replace the property tax" with equivalent revenue. Rates could widely vary if localities implemented sales taxes instead of leaving them to the state.

Of course, that assumes state and local governments continue spending and providing services at the same level. But as economist Ginn points out, the problem lies not only in how property taxes raise money "but also in how much government spends." If the property tax revolt represents revulsion not just at the tax, but at the expense of large government, that may require less revenue to fund a smaller Leviathan.

The post Grassroots Revolt Targets Unpopular Property Taxes appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Last July, President Donald Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on various Canadian goods, a list he subsequently expanded to include additional imports, some of which he banned outright. His legal justification was Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which Congress approved in 1930. Section 338 authorized tariffs in response to discriminatory trade practices. But in the 96 years since it was enacted, no president had ever used it to impose tariffs.

Why is that? According to a lawsuit that the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the answer is clear: Section 338 was superseded by subsequent legislation that likewise targeted discriminatory trade barriers, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and culminating in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301, the current remedy, includes requirements that Trump apparently sought to dodge by invoking Section 338 instead.

That maneuver is illegal, the LJC argues. "Congress already gave the executive branch a tool for responding to unfair foreign trade practices: Section 301, which requires an investigation, public comment and other safeguards," says Jeffrey M. Schwab, the LJC's director of litigation. "The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff."

Why not? "Where provisions in two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one," the lawsuit says. "Where a later act covers the whole subject of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it operates similarly as a repeal. And a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute controls the construction of an earlier one even absent express amendment."

Even if Section 338 somehow survived congressional approval of contrary laws, the LJC adds, Trump's tariffs exceed the authority it grants. And if Trump's interpretation of Section 338 were correct, the lawsuit says, the provision would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from delegating its tariff power to the president without providing "an intelligible principle" to guide and constrain his exercise of it.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs, in short, are "the Administration's latest attempt to exercise, through a statute never designed for the purpose, the tariff power that the Constitution assigns to Congress." That pattern should be familiar by now.

Shortly after taking office in 2025, Trump claimed to have discovered a previously unnoticed delegation of extensive tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that does not mention import taxes and had never been used to impose them. That claim was rejected by every court that considered it, and last February the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all.

Trump responded to that decision by immediately announcing similarly broad tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which addresses "fundamental international payments problems" caused by "serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." In May, the CIT ruled that the new tariffs were illegal because Trump had failed to "identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122."

Trump then switched to Plan C, invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs in response to a foreign "act, policy, or practice" that is "unreasonable or discriminatory" and "burdens or restricts" U.S. commerce. He claimed that provision justified tariffs on 86 trading partners, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, because they had failed to "impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." The CIT is currently weighing challenges to those tariffs, including an LJC lawsuit.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs have now added to the CIT's caseload. The LJC represents Gellert Global Group, an importer that was hit hard by those taxes after Trump added cheese to the list of disfavored Canadian goods. The lawsuit asks the CIT to certify a class of importers, numbering in "the hundreds, if not the thousands," that likewise have been clobbered by Trump's 50 percent tariffs.

Since Trump obviously is aware of Section 301, why did he resort to a never-used, seemingly obsolete provision to justify the tariffs on imports from Canada? As the LJC notes, Section 301 requires an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "consultation with the foreign country concerned, notice, public comment, a hearing, and determinations within statutory deadlines." It also requires "that action be equivalent in value to the burden imposed, that duties be preferred over other import restrictions, and that actions terminate after four years absent a request for continuation and review."

Can Trump avoid those constraints by invoking Section 338 instead? The LJC thinks not: "Congress did not intend to leave in place a parallel authority that would allow the President to impose the same remedies, for the same conduct, free of every one of those safeguards."

Section 338 has been "impliedly repealed," the LJC argues. "At a minimum, Section 301 controls where, as here, the President seeks to respond to foreign practices within Section 301's scope, and the President may not impose duties in response to such practices while disregarding the procedures and limits Section 301 imposes. Because the President did not proceed under Section 301, the Section 338 Tariffs are unlawful whether or not Section 338 survives."

Even if you ignore subsequent legislation, the LJC argues, the Canadian policies that Trump cited when he announced the tariffs do not qualify as "discrimination" under Section 338. "Canada's motor vehicle surtax and its provinces' alcohol purchasing decisions are responses to tariffs that the United States imposed on Canada, not discrimination by Canada against the United States," it says. Trump also complained that Canada treats European cheese imports more favorably than U.S. cheese imports. But "when Congress enacted Section 338, a preference granted under a reciprocal agreement was not 'discrimination.'"

Section 338 "addresses discrimination: measures that single out United States commerce for worse treatment than the commerce of the world at large," the lawsuit says. "It is not a general authorization to impose tariffs whenever the President disagrees with a trading partner's policies, or whenever a trading partner responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it."

Trump also was unfazed by Section 338's requirement that the president set duties to "offset" the costs imposed by discriminatory practices, which implies proportionality. Rather than attempt that, the LJC notes, Trump imposed "the statutory maximum rate of 50 percent without tying it to any measured burden."

As interpreted by Trump, the lawsuit warns, Section 338 authorizes the president to "impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any products of any country that extends better treatment to any other country in any respect—including through any of the hundreds of preferential trade agreements to which the United States is not a party—or that responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it." Yet Section 338 "contains no clear statement authorizing that power," contrary to the "major questions" doctrine, which applies to assertions of executive authority with "vast economic and political significance."

If Section 338 conferred the sort of unfettered authority that Trump is claiming, the LJC says, it "would supply no intelligible principle constraining the exercise of Congress's power to lay duties." His reading "would convert a narrow, fact-dependent provision into an effectively unrestricted delegation of Congress's tariff power," which would be "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power."

This case "is not about the president," says LJC CEO Sara Albrecht. "It is about the presidency. No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required."

The post Trump's 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods Illegally Rely on a Superseded Statute, a Lawsuit Argues appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A proposed "wealth tax" on California's billionaires could backfire and cost the state tens of billions of dollars in the long run.

If the proposed tax drives wealthier residents out of the state, California could end up losing between $1 billion and $3.5 billion annually in income taxes, according to a working paper published this week. A pair of researchers at Stanford University warn that the state could end up losing an estimated $39 billion because of the consequences of the wealth tax.

"These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed," write researchers Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh.

Voters in California will decide next month whether to impose the one-time, 5 percent tax when they vote on Proposition 40. The ballot measure is dividing Democrats—Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, while progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) claims it is the "most important ballot initiative in America and a fight for the soul of our party."

And it's already spurring some billionaires to flee the state—including venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page. Including those two, the seven billionaires who have publicly said they are leaving the state represent more than $539 billion of the nearly $1.9 trillion aggregate net worth of California's billionaires, the researchers note.

With other departures likely happening more quietly, the new study estimates that the tax will generate about $30 billion, a far cry from the $100 billion that the tax's supporters expect. The "behavioral response" from billionaires in California "has eroded most of the projected tax base," write Jaros and Rauh.

That's still a pretty big pot of revenue. In the long run, however, the state is likely to lose out.

After running 100,000 simulations using different assumptions, the two researchers report that "85 percent of plausible outcomes produce a negative" result in state revenue.

Other recent experiments with special taxes on wealth have backfired in similar ways. In response to a new wealth tax in Washington State, Jeff Bezos relocated to Florida, and iconic Seattle brand Starbucks shifted more of its corporate headquarters to Tennessee. Studies have shown that a "millionaires tax" in Massachusetts contributed to wealth moving out of that state.

Capital is always mobile, despite the best efforts of politicians. And if you were a billionaire living in California, why would you stick around?

Polls show voters are narrowly divided over Proposition 40. A Politico poll published earlier this month showed 46 percent of voters plan to vote for the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. Voters were similarly divided when asked if they expected it to pass or not.

The post California's 'Wealth Tax' Could Cost the State $39 Billion appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• Elon Musk says "money becomes irrelevant" if he's right about what the future holds.
• The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said AI and robots will be better than humans at everything.
• The world's richest man said his fortune could be virtually gone within a few generations.

Elon Musk says money could be meaningless one day, and the vast majority of his wealth will likely be gone within a few generations.

The world's richest person predicted that advances in robotics and space travel will create a multiplanetary economy, at which point "money becomes irrelevant" and "conventional currency will not matter."

Value will be measured in mass and power or energy, he continued. "So that's my guess," he said, adding that it seemed a "pretty obvious" outcome to him.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO shared his vision of a post-money future and his outlook on his personal fortune with his biographer, Walter Isaacson, on "The Builders" podcast. The interview was taped in early August and released on Tuesday.

Musk recommended earlier this year that people stop saving for retirement in 10 or 20 years, as he expects AI and other technologies to supercharge productivity and usher in an age of abundance where people can have "whatever stuff they want."

He made a similar argument to Isaacson, saying "there won't be anything that humans can do that the AI and the robots can't do better." People will likely turn to hobbies like growing their own fruits and vegetables, or making art, to find purpose in life, he said.

Musk's plans for his own money

Musk, who briefly became a trillionaire after SpaceX went public in June, topped the Bloomberg Billionaire Index at Monday's close with an estimated $920 billion net worth.

He defended his personal wealth on the podcast, saying that it mostly reflects his ownership of SpaceX and Tesla, and he needs large stakes in both companies to retain voting power and remain in charge.

His fortune is "going to be taxed quite heavily," Musk said, adding that there isn't "some magical way to avoid taxes" because "if there were, I would know about it."

Musk said his wealth will "get whittled down and a few generations from now — if money still matters, which I don't think it will — my descendants would have a tiny fraction of what I have."

He also outlined what he hopes his foundation will spend his fortune on after he's gone: "Continue the goals. Make life multi-planetary, extend consciousness to the stars, improve sustainable energy on Earth."

Notably, Musk pledged on Monday to gift a share of SpaceX to every child in the US next year, a contribution worth over $10 billion today.

His announcement has won praise from President Donald Trump, who hailed Musk's "incredible generosity" and labeled him a "legendary friend" in an X post.

Musk teased a charitable pledge in late July after Nobel economist Daron Acemoglu publicly challenged him over his prediction of a post-money future.

"If money won't matter in 2036, why don't you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036," Acemoglu wrote on X.

"I am actually going to do something along these lines!" Musk responded.

During a portion of an interview with CNN aired on Monday’s “Inside Politics,” Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Troy Jackson could not say what percentage he wanted to tax billionaires at and said that “I’m sure we’ll figure out what

The post Troy Jackson: ‘We’ll Figure Out’ What Percent I Want to Tax Billionaires ‘When I Get There’ appeared first on Breitbart.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2026–2027 term just got a whole lot boozier. On Monday, the justices agreed to hear arguments later this year or next in the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt. At issue is whether the 1868 federal ban on distilling liquor at home is unconstitutional because it exceeds the lawful regulatory power of the federal government. If any modern Supreme Court case ever deserved its own drinking game, this one is it.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the federal ban on home distilling to be unconstitutional because Congress lacked the proper authority to issue such a ban in the first place. It was not a legitimate exercise of the congressional authority "To Lay and collect Taxes," the appellate court reasoned, because "the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue for the government;" yet this law "amount[s] to an anti-revenue provision" that only "prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence." And if it does not exist, of course, the government cannot tax it.

The 5th Circuit also denied that the federal ban on home distilling could be saved by the government's appeal to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says that Congress has the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

But the federal ban on home distilling cannot be "necessary" to the execution of the enumerated taxing power, the 5th Circuit argued, because the provisions of federal law at issue "tax nothing, and are distinct from the regulation of distilling alcoholic products that is permitted by federal tax law."

Nor did the 5th Circuit find the ban to be "proper." "By purporting to ban activity without a plain connection to the exercise of Congress's taxation power," it held, "Congress has essentially—and 'improperly'—invaded the reserved police and regulatory power of the states."

The Trump administration lost this case at the 5th Circuit and has now successfully urged the justices to hear its appeal. In its petition seeking review, the Trump administration faulted the 5th Circuit for its overeagerness to "second-guess" the "legislative judgment" of Congress. Instead, the Trump administration argued, the federal judiciary owes a great deal more deference to the federal government's regulatory priorities in a case like this. "A law is necessary and proper if it is 'convenient' or 'useful' for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and 'plainly adapted' to that legitimate end," the Justice Department's brief argued. "That is the case here."

This case may lead to an interesting divide among the Supreme Court's more conservative members. In United States v. Comstock (2010), a 7–2 Supreme Court embraced the Necessary and Proper Clause as sufficient constitutional grounding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which had empowered federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" individuals who had already finished serving their prison sentences. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in that case, while Justice Samuel Alito voted in concurrence. In other words, they both endorsed a broad view of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. By contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, voted in dissent. The Comstock ruling, Thomas protested, "comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that 'we always have rejected.'"

Are we about to see a similar Alito-Thomas split over the proper reach of federal power in this case? And what about Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh? Will one or more of them play the Scalia part and similarly reject the Trump administration's broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Stay tuned.

The post Trump Administration Urges SCOTUS To Uphold Federal Ban on Distilling Liquor at Home appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Today, the Supreme Court decided to review the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt, which challenges a federal law banning home distilleries. The key question in the case is whether the law in question is justified by the combination of the tax power and the Necessary and Proper Clause (which gives Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper" for executing other powers granted to the federal government). This is likely to be most important Supreme Court Necessary and Proper Clause decision since at least NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), which ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power; it cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. This case is likely to further clarify the meaning of "proper," perhaps by explicating in more detail what counts as a "great…and independent" power.

In the lower court decision in this case, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the law is not "proper" and even that it isn't "necessary." There is also a Sixth Circuit decision that went the other way, thereby creating a circuit split.

As explained in my earlier posts on the Fifth and Sixth Circuit decisions (linked above), I think this law is not "proper," and I hope the Supreme Court strikes it down. I summarize the reasons why in my post on the Fifth Circuit ruling:

The Fifth Circuit… concludes that the law in question exceeds Congress' authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants the power to makes laws "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution other federal powers. I think the court is right that the law in question is not "proper." The Supreme Court, in NFIB v. Sebelius(2012), ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power. It cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. See my analysis in this article. The power claimed here is clearly "great and independent." As Judge [Edith] Jones notes, "[u]nder the government's logic, Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."

I elaborated further in the post criticizing the Sixth Circuit decision:

[T]he Sixth Circuit is badly wrong to conclude that the law is "proper." As explained in  my earlier post, the Supreme Court, in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), ruled that a "proper" power permissible under the Clause is one that is "ancillary" to the implementation of an enumerated power. It cannot be a "great, substantive and independent" power. The power to ban any home-based activity that might serve a substitute for taxable activity outside the home is clearly a "great and independent power." As Judge Edith Jones explains in the Fifth Circuit ruling, "[u]nder the government's logic, Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."

The Sixth Circuit tries to address this point by claiming alcohol is somehow special….

This distinction between alcohol and all other commodities is totally arbitrary. The same reasoning could justify banning home production of anything else that is more easily taxed if produced outside the home. And there is a long history of home production of all kinds of other commodities taxed or severely regulated by the government, ranging from cigarettes to illegal drugs, to pornographic videos.

While Judge Edith Jones (author of the Fifth Circuit decision) is one of that circuit's most conservative judges, the ruling was also joined by liberal Obama appointee Judge James Graves. On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit decision was written by prominent conservative Judge Raymond Kethledge. We shall see if the Supreme Court also divides on this issue in a way that cuts across conventional ideological and jurisprudential lines.

As noted in my post on the Fifth Circuit case, I think Judge Jones is not persuasive in arguing that the home distillery ban isn't "necessary," as well as improper. That argument is unlikely to prevail under the Supreme Court's expansive definition of "necessary, "  dating back to McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where Chief Justice John Marshall famously ruled that "necessary" includes any measures that may be "useful" or "convenient" for implementing an enumerated power.

As also noted in my posts on the two lower court rulings, I think the government has a better argument that this law is authorized by the Supreme Court's badly misguide precedent on federal power under Commerce Clause (which grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce). But the Supreme Court is apparently not going to review that issue. The question presented submitted to the Court in McNutt is limited to the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The post Supreme Court Will Hear Necessary and Proper Clause Case on Federal Law Banning Home Distilleries appeared first on Reason Magazine.

For many Americans overseas, the scariest day this month is not Halloween, but October 15—the final extended deadline for filing income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  

An estimated 3.3 million U.S. citizens live abroad, although the number is likely an undercount because the government doesn't keep a comprehensive list or require Americans overseas to register their residence. Still, American citizens and resident aliens living abroad must pay U.S. income taxes and comply with domestic tax filing requirements, regardless of where they live or work. They must also complete the dizzying process of reporting any foreign bank accounts, assets, and financial interests in foreign institutions. 

When filing their income tax returns, most Americans living abroad have zero tax liability. In its 2025 Annual Report to Congress, the Taxpayer Advocate Service—an independent organization within the IRS that helps people navigate tax problems—found that for Americans overseas, "the percent of individual international tax returns reporting no tax liability is significantly higher than domestic taxpayers." Yet, the agency reports that the filing process is "complex, overlapping, and punitive." The report says failure to comply results in "harsh and disproportionate penalties…even when taxpayers make good-faith mistakes or owe no U.S. tax."

The U.S. income tax rate is low compared to other high-income countries, so Americans living overseas typically pay more in local taxes than they would here. Still, Brandon Mitchener, executive director at Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad, tells Reason that Americans living outside the U.S. are often oblivious to their income tax obligations, assuming they're exempt because they already pay taxes in their country of residence. He says that complex U.S. tax laws and financial regulations force many Americans living overseas to request an extension to October 15. 

The date also coincides with the final deadline for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)—regulations that require Americans with foreign financial assets above a certain threshold to declare the value of their assets to the IRS or Treasury Department. 

Under FATCA, Americans living overseas with foreign financial assets exceeding $200,000 at year-end or more than $300,000 at any point during the year must declare their assets when filing their income tax return. The law also requires foreign financial institutions to report information about U.S. account holders directly to the IRS. Originally enacted to catch Americans overseas engaged in tax evasion or other criminal financial activity, it has instead made American citizenship an impediment for expatriates looking to save or invest money outside the U.S.

"Because of FATCA, many foreign financial institutions shun American clients," Mitchener says. This includes Trade Republic, a German digital bank and online brokerage firm that doesn't accept U.S. citizens living abroad, a category of people it tellingly describes as "FATCA customers."

"Some charge a premium for banking-while-American," he adds, while some have "even de-banked American clients." The latter is a very real concern for Madison Berry, an American living in the Netherlands. She tells Reason she's "a little bit worried" that her European bank will one day "come back and be like, 'Oh, you're a U.S. citizen. We're gonna close your account.'"

This "reduces choice and raises the cost and complexity of everyday financial products for Americans abroad, from basic savings accounts to mortgages and retirement savings," Mitchener says, creating problems unique to America and Eritrea, the only two countries that tax citizens living outside their borders. 

Compounding matters, Americans with foreign financial accounts exceeding $10,000 must file an FBAR with the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, even though the form duplicates much of the same information already reported through FATCA. The reporting requirements make investing or saving money abroad prohibitive for Americans and foreign financial institutions, with foreign banks opting to close existing accounts or outright denying Americans the opportunity to open a bank account, according to a 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office. Seven years later, little has changed. The IRS itself admits that its systems and functions are "inaccessible to or incompatible with the needs of taxpayers living abroad, creating unnecessary barriers to compliance." 

Berry says figuring out her tax obligations and reporting requirements has left her "in a financial limbo." "I seriously considered renouncing my U.S. citizenship as part of the process just to make life easier." She's not alone. 

Several Americans living overseas who spoke to Reason on condition of anonymity said they were also considering renouncing their U.S. citizenship rather than deal with the onerous annual tax filing process. One American living in Ireland who owns and operates a U.S.-based business says she uses a remote desktop and virtual private network to access her financial institutions to avoid scrutiny. 

Another tells Reason she's considering renouncing her citizenship because America's tax system is "predatory in how complicated it is and how much responsibility it puts on ordinary people to figure everything out themselves."

The post Why Some Americans Living Abroad Would Rather Renounce Their Citizenship Than File Taxes appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Republican congressman who hopes to be the next governor of Michigan has a plan to help American businesses hurt by President Donald Trump's tariffs.

Is he proposing to abolish those tariffs? Hahahaha, oh please. 

Instead, Rep. John James (R–Mich.) has introduced a bill that would use some tariff revenue to offset the economic harm being caused by…the tariffs.

James' proposal, the Tariff Relief for American Development and Employment Act of 2026, would create a new tariff relief fund to be accessed by American businesses that "demonstrate actual tariff-related economic injury."

"Michigan is disproportionally affected by the trade war, so it's reasonable to use tariff revenue to reduce the effect on Michigan businesses and workers," James said in a statement announcing the legislation.

To qualify for the money, businesses would also have to pledge to maintain existing production and employment levels. The bill instructs the Treasury Department, which would administer the fund, to give priority to businesses with larger numbers of American workers and those that avoid layoffs and boost worker pay.

In other words: Pay the tariffs first, then do a bunch of paperwork and cross your fingers that the bureaucrats at the Treasury decide that you qualify for reimbursement. And in the meantime, don't cut production or lay off workers—things a business might naturally do in response to a new tax burden—or the federal overseers might not favor you.

"You guys remember when Republicans used to criticize Democrats for imposing costly, convoluted taxes and then giving some Americans their own money back?" asks Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics at the Cato Institute, in response to James' proposal. Indeed.

For that matter, remember when Republicans understood that concentrating more economic decision-making power in Washington wasn't the way to help American businesses? This bill requires businesses to jump through a series of hoops—a process that will add more costs and complexity on top of the tariffs—and creates more incentives for executives to work harder at currying favor in Washington rather than succeeding in the marketplace.

The fact that James is running for governor in Michigan—and trailing in the polls—likely sheds some light on his motivations here.

This does not seem like a bill meant for Congress to seriously consider or pass. In all likelihood, it exists solely so James can tell voters in Michigan that he's trying to ease the pain caused by Trump's tariffs—which are deeply unpopular and increasingly seem to be strangling the GOP's prospects in the midterms.

In Michigan, manufacturing employment has declined since April 2025, when Trump launched his second-term tariffs on what the White House dubbed "Liberation Day." Meanwhile, Michigan households have paid more than $23 billion in tariff-related costs since January 2025, according to a tracker maintained by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

By acknowledging that the tariffs are hurting businesses in Michigan, James becomes the latest Republican to openly break with the president over his signature policy. Former congressman Mike Rogers, who is running for Senate in Michigan, has TV ads calling for an end to what he calls the "tariff war."

It is good that Republicans are finally admitting the reality of the tariffs. Study after study has shown that the import taxes are imposing costs on American businesses and consumers. Last week, the New York Federal Reserve concluded that the average price of 67 common household goods would have fallen over the past year, if not for the tariffs. Instead, those prices increased by about 3 percent.

Fixing that requires repealing Trump's tariffs, rather than constructing a new labyrinthine process for funneling some of the tariff money back to certain businesses.

James' bill is a deeply silly proposal, but there's also something quite pathetic about this. James is, after all, a member of Congress. You know, the branch of government that the U.S. Constitution vests with control over trade and tariffs. You don't need to build a bureaucratic Rube Goldberg machine to "reduce the effect [of tariffs] on Michigan businesses and workers."

You just have to do your constitutionally appointed job and tell the president that he can't unilaterally raise taxes on Americans whenever the mood strikes.

The post Michigan Congressman Proposes Using Tariff Revenue for Tariff Relief Fund appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Every year, the Indonesian government forgoes taxes it could collect. Through tax holidays, rate cuts and exemptions, it courts investment while easing the burden on households and small businesses. Economists call this “tax expenditure” because giving up revenue is another way of spending public money. The Ministry of Finance expects it to reach 564 trillion […]

The post Indonesia should count the real cost of its mineral incentives appeared first on Asia Times.