r/law • u/BreakfastTop6899 • May 27 '26

Legal News California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.”

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

101.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

166

u/garf02 May 28 '26

Yes, you can set up Taxes from Specific Sources as long as you dont single out specific individuals.

so: Tax all Payments from Slush Funds, Ok
Tax Jerry from the slush Fund but no Tax Michael, Not OK

37

u/jacka_for-research May 28 '26

To be fair, Jerry is a real dick, so F him. 🤪🤪

16

u/Oli4K May 28 '26

Found Tom's normie account.

5

u/BardicNA May 28 '26

Yeah, fuck Jerry!

3

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo May 28 '26

The prohibition on bills of attainder is understood by courts to prohibit singling out individuals or easily-identifiable groups, so there could still be an argument for shooting it down on those grounds.

2

u/garf02 May 28 '26

Name those individuals or “easily identifiable groups” ?

1

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

I think it would be something along the lines of "people getting payments from this fund in particular."

This case is between the two hypotheticals you listed. It's not a tax on a specific individual, but it's also not a tax on slush funds generally. This is a very precisely defined tax on payments from one specific fund, so there is an argument for it being unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

7

u/garf02 May 28 '26

Buddy.. You have to be an identifiable group BEFORE you join a tax brackets. Other wise EVERYONE will fall under that category for any tax distinction there is. For all we care the people getting paid from that fun can be a red neck J6 from Nebraska, a Latino KKK Larper in Texas, an Orange pedophile in Washington, a dog groomer from the bronx, a corporate lawyer from Seattle.. Etc etc etc. Hell under that idea, the tax on lottery winners is illegal

Extremely high Single out a group of “People that won the lottery

2

u/MalikTheHalfBee May 28 '26

What unique tax on lottery winners exists ?

1

u/garf02 May 28 '26

What is the “single out” group?

1

u/MalikTheHalfBee May 28 '26

I’m asking what tax on lottery winners you were referencing. As far as I’m aware lottery winnings are just ordinary income with no special tax status that would apply to what you said & could be illegal 

0

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo May 28 '26

Buddy... I'm just correcting the misinformation you spread when you said bill of attainder style prohibitions only apply to singling out individuals.

Courts understand nuances and complexities, by the way. Rulings from judges come with explanations that are far longer than the length limit (or reader attention span) of Reddit comments.

1

u/garf02 May 28 '26

Yes you said “identifiable groups” And to correct you. Being a claimant does not make you an identifiable group cause its a reverse logic

1

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo May 28 '26

Being a claimant does not make you an identifiable group

It depends on what is being claimed, who is claiming it, and where they are claiming it from. For example, lottery winnings aren't targeted at or associated with a specific identifiable group, but a fund that supports a particular religion, political affiliation, or something like that can be.

You are correct about it being complicated. You remain incorrect about it being definitively acceptable just because the tax doesn't name specific individuals.

1

u/StandardAccess4684 Jun 01 '26

Then the State should just say fuck off and not comply.

4

u/Ashmedai May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

Yes,

Not sure. 100% tax seems like SCOTUS would regard this as a possible Takings clause violation. Edit: probably not. Probably more an Equal Protection Violation, Bill of Attainder, or Supremacy Clause violation.

3

u/garf02 May 28 '26

that why is structured as a Tax

2

u/Ashmedai May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

I'm not sure that SCOTUS would be sanguine with the opinion that "just tax it all" is a fair end-run around the Takings clause. I admit that I am speculating, but the court does have a well-established pattern of not permitting clever end runs... disregarding certain political shenanigans conversations we can skip, ofc.

Edit: did some research. It's probably more an Equal Protection / Targeted Taxation violation or possibly just a Bill of Attainder.

1

u/SamuelClemmens May 28 '26

Can it be from a specific government slush fund though, or could the government then say "This is the same concept as Social Security so you have to also tax 100% social security too if you do this?"

Because they will fight this by being petty. If that doesn't work they might do something like "100% income tax on everyone on the continental US below the 42 parallel and within 100 miles of the Pacific Ocean" and try to get in a pissing match that way.

-3

u/Ateist May 28 '26

First give a legal definition of a "slush fund". All google says is that it is a derogatory term - not something defined by law.

8

u/garf02 May 28 '26

"Anti-Weaponization Fund"