O’Reilly highlighted a growing movement for some kind of “wealth tax,” which he said was “off-the-chart unconstitutional.” Hill argued that if done properly, that kind of tax could make the United States “more democratic and fair.” He explained that taxing beyond income and getting to someone’s personal wealth would be an effective way to get the richest Americans to pay more in taxes, throwing out a modest 1 percent tax on an individual’s net worth as a starting point.
O’Reilly argued that such a tax would require a
O’Reilly maintained that in order for an individual’s wealth to be determined, someone is going to need to actually calculate that wealth. Hill argued that people’s total wealth would need to be revealed the same way as people file taxes in the U.S., to which O’Reilly told Hill, “You don’t understand economics.”
As the two men continued to argue, Hill tried to get O’Reilly to listen to his points as O’Reilly insisted that if there are no inspectors, the government then just “arbitrarily assigns a number” to decide what people can pay. Constitutionally speaking, O’Reilly argued a wealth tax would be considered a “private property seizure.” Hill accused O’Reilly of trying to play a technicality, and in any case he would suggest an amendment in order to make such a tax constitutional.
Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:
—–
Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac