Hacker News Reader

Comment by pushcx | Hacker News Reader

For anyone else immediately curious: the US's [ex post facto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...) law applies to retroactively deeming acts to be criminal. Challenges to retroactive tax laws on this basis have not succeeded.

View on HN

Given that is the case, what exactly stops a city from enacting a 100 year retroactive income tax? Are there limits to how far back they can go?

Fear of citizens burning down city hall? It's usually difficult enough to pass ordinary tax increases. Trying something outrageously unpopular like that would probably be political suicide.

What politicians do is just narrowly target a proposed tax to apply to a small group of people that they can paint in an unsympathetic light.

So rephrasing the question, "what exactly stops a city from enacting a 100 year retroactive income tax on those in the 1%?"

Those with the most to lose are the least likely to burn down city hall.

"what exactly stops a city from enacting a 100 year retroactive income tax on those in the 1%?"

They will have no funds for their re-election campaign. In an extreme case they may die of a mysterious stroke or have an affair suddenly made public.

What if they just pass the tax retroactively on those that are the 1% that moved out of the city and are no longer involved in funding the politics?

The idea that something can be passed retroactively in any form is insane.

What stops a city from enacting a non-retroactive tax of equivalent value?

Not getting Re-elected. But if you tax dead people who don’t live there anymore that’s not a concern.

"Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. If the government says you owe money, the burden is on you to prove that you do not.

Traffic law is the same.

If the government accuses you of j-walking or speeding, you need to go to court to prove your innocence otherwise they assume you're guilty.

I've heard that civil forfeiture is the same way. These are all unfortunate.

That is false. The government still has the burden of proof, although in some states it is quite low (preponderance of the evidence). That you need to appear in court does not mean you have the burden to prove your innocence.

In many places in California you have to first pay the fine too contest the fine. Upon your contest being successful you'll eventually get your money back. This may take 9 months. Fronting the court $200 for 9 months might not hurt a software engineer, but for some people that might mean not paying rent.

And asset forfeiture is more insidious. The case is made against the forfeited property, not it's owner. Hopefully the ruling in Timbs v Indiana will help reign that in.

> "Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply.

No, it's not the one domain. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies only in criminal law (neither “innocent” nor “guilty” even applies outside of the domain of criminal law, much less that maxim about the relation between them.)

Indeed. There's much more symmetry outside of the criminal law. Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. This may make sense if you deny the claim and are wealthy (i.e. you could pay up) and want to speed up clearing the air. Otherwise the claimant can wait a few years and use the court approved interest rate (high) to hit you over the head a few years down the line.

> Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money.

In the US this would be a suit for declaratort judgement in which formally you asked the court to declare you did not owe money, but functionally it seems generally similar.

Are you referring to civil or criminal law? Innocent until proven guilty is only relevant for criminal and in those cases the burden of proof is definitely on the state.

This unclear, the law states that retroactive laws are illegal both at the state and federal level

I'm always suspicious of politicians who either lack this basic understanding of US law or fully understand it, but are posturing. And that doesn't even get into the ethics of changing the rules after the fact.

Failure to pay taxes is not criminal. You cannot go to jail for not paying taxes. The most that can happen is additional penalties and fines.

The only time taxes become a criminal matter is if you lie on the paperwork.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com