The American Prospect:  The Media Got the Billionaires Income Tax Wrong, by John R. Brooks (Georgetown; Google Scholar), David Gamage (Indiana; Google Scholar) & Ari Glogower (Ohio State; Google Scholar):

Despite the media framing, a tax on billionaires’ investment income is not novel, unworkable, unconstitutional, or divisive.

Last week, to pay for the priorities in the Build Back Better agenda, Senate Democrats proposed a “billionaires income tax,” which would require billionaires to report and pay tax on their investment gains—the primary source of their income. The reform would have closed one of the most glaring loopholes in our tax law, one that allows the richest Americans to live unimaginably lavish lifestyles without ever paying income tax.

Rather than focusing on these benefits, however, the press coverage centered on a litany of objections. Journalists framed the billionaires income tax as probably unworkable (Reuters), presumptively unconstitutional (Time), and a novel or even radical departure from the income tax as we know it (The New York Times and Fortune, respectively). Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) branded it “divisive”—a characterization reported uncritically across many sources.

We are tax law professors, not journalists. But we can say with complete confidence that the billionaires income tax is none of these things. Any honest discussion, in the context of ongoing reconciliation negotiations or further in the future, should begin with this context: The proposed tax is a partial fix within a system defined by complexity and unfairness, which has led to hourly wage earners and salaried professionals paying far higher rates of tax than billionaires. …

The billionaires income tax is not radical, unworkable, or unconstitutional. It is a sensible solution to close the most glaring loophole in the tax code, and to ensure that all taxpayers play by the same rules. The next time it is considered, American taxpayers deserve a more honest debate.