5 Ways a Wealth Tax Is At Least as Bad as an Income Tax | Mises Wire

There has been an increasing push for wealth taxes as of late. Supporters for new and larger wealth taxes contend that as the population ages, there won’t be enough wage earners to fund the public purse. In other words, there will be less wage-based income to tax as time goes on.
— Read on mises.org/wire/5-ways-wealth-tax-least-bad-income-tax

The song Taxman by the Beatles comes to mind

Illinois Thinking About Imposing a Stiff Exit Tax to Leave? | Armstrong Economics

The politicians in Illinois after destroying the state economically, want to now impose an EXIT tax for anyone who dares to think about leaving the state. This is the problem we face. They will never look at the long-term impact of their decisions. Such a tax may make others decide NOT to move to the state and then watch property values really crash. All they think about is just to survive to the next election. There are those in the ranks who want to impose taxes on every trade in Chicago. Talk about no taxation without representation. So anyone trading on a Chicago exchange from around the world has to be taxed by Illinois without a right to vote?
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/illinois-thinking-about-imposing-a-stiff-exit-tax-to-leave/

A tax to leave overtaxation

The Most Important Florida Election Win is the One No One is Talking About | Mises Institute

Last night’s midterms were the odd political event where both sides left seeming reasonably happy with the result. While it was no blue wave, Democrats will now have two years of using the House to investigate the Trump Administration, while the GOP has strengthened its hold of the Senate and held on to several governorships.
— Read on mises.org/power-market/most-important-florida-election-win-one-no-one-talking-about

I really like this idea

They now want to Reduce Dog & Cat Ownership to Stop Global Warming | Armstrong Economics

Well, it was only a matter of time that when you read between the lines concerning pet population of dogs and cats, the solution is to REDUCE their numbers – which is really what they argue for behind the curtain concerning humans. I have written previously how they really want to starve humans to reduce the population. I have previously told the story about attending a White House dinner in Washington back in 1996 and being seated with the entire Environmental group. It was a Washington elite political dinner and because I attended with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and I was an adviser to the University, whoever it was that made the seating arrangements for these tables of 10 seated us with the environmental groups. This was in the mid-90s. Dick was the one who kept trying to drag the truth out and there it came. These were the heads of the top three environmental organizations. They admitted that the real goal was to reduce the human population by making it difficult to expand and build houses. Labeling everything wetlands would reduce the ability to expand housing and thus shrink the population. When Dick got them to admit that he moved in for the bottom-line question and asked: “So who’s grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?” They now are targeting your pets. They already are taxing farmers per cow because they fart and are causing Global Warming. Now they are honing in on your dog or cat. The argument is that pets constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides. Their solution: Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits would considerably reduce these impacts. What’s next? Quotas on having children? That did not work so well in China.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/they-now-want-to-reduce-dog-cat-ownership-to-stop-global-warming/

The Supreme Court’s Most Unprecedented Case? – The Imaginative Conservative

In the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution required formal, legal, and constitutional recognition of homosexual marriage. And yet if the Court had followed its own precedents, it would have ruled that Edith Windsor lacked the legal standing to file her original lawsuit… (essay by Thomas Ascik)
— Read on www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/10/supreme-court-precedent-united-states-v-windsor-thomas-ascik.html

New York Towns Gearing Up to Fight IRS Ruling on Local Taxes – WSJ

An emerging coalition of New York municipalities is preparing to challenge proposed Internal Revenue Service regulations that block the ability of cities and towns to set up funds that allow residents to pay their local taxes as charitable contributions.
— Read on www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-towns-gearing-up-to-fight-irs-ruling-on-local-taxes-1538319601

They want their taxes tax deductible?