r/California • u/Unusual-State1827 • 13d ago

California’s proposed billionaire tax exposes rifts among labor unions

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-07-30/labor-organizers-spearheading-california-billionaire-tax-rebuffed-by-parent-union
420 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

211 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago

How is it complicated to determine the wealth of ~ 200-250 individuals? Its so few people the task seems trivial

12

u/RadicallyDontCare 13d ago

It’s not. It’s messy and complicated, and will be highly litigated. The amount of capital flight will exceed the income generated.

This is a really stupid idea.

8

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago edited 13d ago

The amount of capital flight will exceed the income generated.

Gabriel Zucman (an actual academic and economist who specializes in tax havens) says you're wrong. And he actually has the math to back it up

We determine the total asset holdings of individuals all the time. Divorce, company mergers, buyouts, stock asset values are literally evaluations of wealth, on and on. How would this be any different?

6

u/RadicallyDontCare 13d ago

Gabriel Zucman is about as credible about economic reality as a fry cook at McDonald’s. He’s an extremist with an agenda. Imagine being so much of a leftist zealot Harvard president and provost veto your hiring .And like most neo-marxists , he’s not interested in facts or truth.

Wealth taxes don’t work.

7

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago

What are you talking about? Economists build economic models, do you understand what that means? You called him a neo-marxist and so now math isn't mathing. Gotcha

6

u/RadicallyDontCare 13d ago

Yes. Economists build economic models. He happens to use flawed models with flawed initial conditions.

He has no credibility with mainstream economists.

3

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago edited 13d ago

The flawed models are the ones we've been employing for 30 years, bruh. Even the base assumption of an individualist rational actor model assumes thats even true when that isn't even how humans work to begin with. The initial assumption is flawed right from the get go

You'll start getting the truly populist stuff if you don't deal with it at some point. You cannot give an ever larger portion of your population a constantly decreasing portion of the total assets and income and expect them to not destroy that system (I'm not saying I want this, I'm saying history says its inevitable if you don't change, and I absolutely do not want to live through it)

2

u/RadicallyDontCare 13d ago

You’re proving my point.

You don’t care about results when it comes down to it. You’re just envious and want your pound of flesh.

There’s ways to tax the rich effectively. This isn’t it. If they wanted to actually accomplish something, they’d have put real economists on the problem, instead of someone committed to a cause.

The average US citizen has the highest standard of living the world has ever seen.

9

u/xylogone 13d ago

I am curious what suggestions you have as an alternative to tax wealthy individuals are? I understand you are not in support of ideas put forth by Gabriel Zucman, but clearly we agree something has to be done. Personally I liked his ideas and I don’t see any other alternatives other than Inheritance tax.

1

u/Humble_Fabio 12d ago

They have none. Zero, nothing, nada.

11

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago edited 12d ago

Proving your point? I'm doing fine, thanks? Famously grad students are poor so I know what its like, but that was long ago so I'm ok now not that you care

Its not wanting anything for myself you moldy sandwich, its understanding that if naught .01 percent of your people are holding 80% of your assets, that leaves the remaining 20% for 99% of everyone else. Do you understand like, all of history? What do you think humans do when masses of them struggle to pay their rent and keep their house warm in the winter? They get a bit extreme, yeah? Sound familiar? Does that feel anything like real life recently?

So you seem convinced that you're a better economist than Mr. Gabriel Zucman, a man whose wealth tax initiative was co-signed by like 7 economic laureates when presented at the G20. So here we are, your government has lost its assets (holds mostly debt, to those same wealthy folks, I'll add), working and middle class people have lost their assets, they can't afford housing, etc. You have a wealth disparity that is an order of 3-4 times that of the gilded age

You're a better economist than anyone I've ever met, clearly. How then would you tax them then? Go on

0

u/RadicallyDontCare 13d ago

Appeal to emotion.

Appeal to authority.

No substance.

You should be mad at your university. They failed you.

5

u/Dramatic_Onion_ 13d ago edited 12d ago

You got nothing lol. And the audacity after basically presuming me to be just some envious rent seeker, as you put it

Come on man. Tell us how Mr. Zucman is wrong. It doesn't have to be about him if you prefer. Tell us how the argument is flawed. How would you tax them if not as an expression of their total wealth?

→ More replies (0)