Turley's Critique of El-Sayed's Wealth Tax Proposal as Economically and Constitutionally Flawed
Source: "JONATHAN TURLEY: Michigan Senate hopeful thinks billionaires are the answer to every problem | Fox News." August 26, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
Turley argues that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed's plan to tax the wealth of people worth over $100 million is a bad idea because it would drive away businesses and rich residents from Michigan, amounts to unfairly taxing the same money twice, and is likely unconstitutional. He also warns that despite the 'billionaire' framing, history shows these taxes tend to expand to hit more and more people over time.
Conclusion
Abdul El-Sayed's proposed wealth tax on Michigan residents worth $100 million or more would be constitutionally dubious at the federal level and economically disastrous for Michigan specifically, ultimately expanding to target more than just billionaires.
Premises
- El-Sayed conflates wealth taxes with income taxes, showing confusion or lack of rigor in his proposal (e.g., his statement about taxing someone '7%' on a billion dollars misapplies wealth tax logic to income calculations)
- A wealth tax constitutes double taxation, since wealthy individuals have already paid income taxes when the money was earned and capital gains taxes on investment profits
- Historical precedent shows that 'tax the billionaires' rhetoric is a strategic framing that inevitably expands to lower wealth thresholds, as El-Sayed himself has already extended his proposal to those with $100 million (not just billionaires), and figures like Rep. Ro Khanna have pushed for taxes on millionaires
- Michigan is already struggling to attract businesses and jobs, and imposing an additional wealth tax on top of existing state income tax (4.25%) and corporate tax (6%) would further drive away high-net-worth individuals and businesses
- A wealth tax would be unconstitutional at the federal level because the 16th Amendment only authorized income taxes, not taxes on accumulated wealth/property
- This type of 'eat-the-rich' politics has a long history (from ancient Athens to the French Revolution to Huey Long's 1930s 'Share Our Wealth' campaign) of being used by demagogues to divide populations into 'haves' and 'have-nots' with unrealistic promises
- El-Sayed has not released a detailed proposal establishing specific rates or thresholds, suggesting the proposal is more political rhetoric than serious policy
Assumptions
- Wealthy individuals and businesses will relocate or reduce economic activity in Michigan if faced with additional wealth taxation
- The historical pattern of expanding tax thresholds will necessarily repeat itself with this specific proposal
- Double taxation (taxing both income/gains and static wealth) is inherently unfair or economically harmful
- State-level wealth taxes face the same constitutional constraints as federal ones (though the article's constitutional argument primarily addresses federal taxation)
- The Michigan economy's current struggles with attracting business would be exacerbated specifically by this policy rather than other factors
- El-Sayed's stated funding needs (Medicare-for-All, reparations, roads) require this specific wealth tax mechanism rather than alternative funding sources