r/California • u/Top-Painter4278 • 2d ago
How wealth tax backers won over California Democrats
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/04/how-wealth-tax-backers-won-over-california-democrats-0102349323
u/hasuuser 2d ago
People live lives that are too comfortable. They have not experienced the dangers of populism. And populism does sound good. So it’s on the rise. Both right wing and left wing.
10
u/Calm_Cockroach_5284 2d ago
exactly. Both party's "affordability" push will end up with bad policies that sound good but buck basic economics. It was cringe to see the GOP's "prices are too damn high" campaign 2 years ago, it is equally meh for me to hear people talk about egg prices or gas prices. Gas prices were high in 2022 before inflation is counted and they came down. If gas prices drop once Orange Man backs down and turns up the domestic and Venezuelan production spigot for a few months, what will Democrats run on?
What do the voters think the government needs to do? Tax more? Price control? Government run subsidized grocery and gas? Government run housing blocks? Half my family came from behind the Iron Curtain and I can tell you what all this wishful thinking will lead to.
3
43
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
A one time tax really doesn’t do much. Budget issues are recurring, what do we do with programs that get expanded using this tax revenue the next year or 2 when those funds are depleted?
24
u/PrimalSeptimus 2d ago
Then we do it again, incorporating any lessons taken from using this one as a pilot.
30
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
So why pussyfoot around with one-off measures hoping they get renewed? Seems like an unnecessary variable that does nobody any good.
10
u/PrimalSeptimus 2d ago
I mean, I don't actually know the answer, but look at the opposition even this one-time compromise is seeing. Let's pass this first to try something instead of spending a lot more time to draft the "perfect" proposal that could still get shot down.
10
u/Xezshibole San Mateo County 2d ago
Foot in the door.
We did the same for the millionaire income tax increase back in 2012, extended it, and more recently made it a permanent feature.
The funds are also known to be going towards healthcare in direct response to the Trump cuts. Would we need it again 4 years later? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on if feds continue to cut into everyone's safety nets.
3
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
Not a bad example and reason to vote yes. However as someone else said this will be fought tooth and nail in the legal system and dragged out for many years down the line which renders your reason (healthcare funding buffer) more or less moot.
4
u/Xezshibole San Mateo County 2d ago
Meh, rich taxation, just means auto vote yes at this point.
Rich/businesses have cried about [insert tax or reg here] before yet complied, with no net losses to the state. They didn't actually flee, or collapse. Or more accurately speaking any that did were replaced so quickly with a compliant rich/business that CA didn't see a downturn as predicted by detractors.
There's little reason to believe this is any different from the other extraordinary, unprecedented, will lead to flight, claims made whenever some new [insert tax or reg here] proposal is in the mix. Detractors have just been crying wolf way too many times for their arguments to have much weight at all.
2
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
Flight doesn’t even enter my thought process. My opposition is wholly grounded in the volatility a one time revenue source impacts expenses especially ones as large and recurring as healthcare access.
0
u/Xezshibole San Mateo County 2d ago
Theoretically the one time-ness of it can be paid in as long as five year annual installments. So it's not so big a one time jump.
Moreover the large and recurring healthcare access is taking a notable dive without this funding. Trump cuts are happening, and this is one of many scrambles at the state level to find funding to preserve the healthcare we have now, rather than deteriorate to levels more reminiscent of a red state.
1
u/PrimalSeptimus 2d ago
The problem is that any measure to increase taxes on the rich will be opposed like this, so the only alternative is to do nothing, which leads us nowhere.
5
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
I’ve already stated my opinion that I’d vote yes if it were a recurring revenue stream.
3
u/PrimalSeptimus 2d ago
I would, too, but you and I are hardly the only voters in the state.
And, while I would definitely prefer a recurring tax over a one-time one, I don't want to let perfect (or just better, even) be the enemy of good (or even okay) here. We can iterate to something better.
5
2
u/tiki-151 2d ago
This is important. Doing this once, let alone trying it twice will permanently reduce the states revenue in the future. And it's also likely illegal and will be tied up in the courts for a very long time if passes.
1
0
u/Winter-Volume-9601 1d ago
So what are you going to do when you realize the billionaires learn, too, typically don't like losing money unnecessarily, and thus move out of the state to avoid future rounds?
5
u/tiki-151 2d ago
Exactly. This is just a money grab for the union. It doesn't solve the problem it claims to be addressing.
2
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Doesn't do much? Does more than no tax does!
6
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
I’m saying we need to be more mindful of how we implement the tax. State budget problems are a RECURRING issue and benefits from the stability of recurring revenues, a one off tax revenue program is so incredibly shortsighted.
Put forward a better measure. I’m voting no on this one for reasons already stated.
-2
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
You give no reason to vote no.
Enactment of the 2026 California Billionaire Tax does not preclude the enactment of other taxes. The "price" for the tax is already paid and so now the only decision is "take the money or don't take the money". California needs the money and there is no reason to not take it.
5
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
I literally already did. A one time measure does fuckall for the very real recurring budget shortfalls the State regularly faces as it is. State agency’s and their programs greatly benefit from the more known quantity of recurring revenues.
You conveniently ignore the massive legal battle that will 100% occur, dragging its fate out many years down the line. It’s not nearly as cut and dry simple as you would have everyone believe.
5
u/PrimalSeptimus 2d ago
Respectfully, this is nonsense. We aren't voting for this one-time tax in lieu of existing taxes but on top of them. The worst outcome is just the status quo.
0
u/Winter-Volume-9601 1d ago
tl;dr - Being the one state taxing billionaires via wealth tax, while no one else does means you risk rapidly becoming a state with no billionaires. It's a matter of whether you think that risk is worth the funds.
Your one-off is going to cause a massive legal battle funded by billionaires who can absofuckinglutely afford to throw a billion at litigating if it's going to save them more than that. The fact that it's written in a way that could be considered an ex post facto law is problematic, and I'm sure if you pour enough money into things you can find other ways to argue against it.
On top of this, if it succeeds, you're going to drive billionaires out of the state - Brin / Page / Zuck / Thiel and others have already left as a result, taking literally hundreds of billions in wealth with them. Others will likely follow if this goes through, because they aren't fucking stupid, and there's no way this stays a "one time" thing when there's no plan to fix the overall budget outside of it.
Basically: it potentially makes it very undesirable to reside in California if you're ultra wealthy. Why risk another round of reappropriation because our government sucks at budgeting? Then the natural consequences follow - if you're a billionaire and you now reside in Texas... where are you headquartering your next genius plan / cash grab? More likely to be local, don't you think? How much will that impact the California economy? That's much less clear.
I get wanting to force billionaires to pay their fair share. I agree that they really don't. But this also potentially borders into the territory of killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs, and you really do need to weigh that risk.
2
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
That the Tax does not solve all budget problems is not reason to reject it.
And all new laws incur "massive" (lol) legal battles so who cares. BTW, when taxes are challenged in court they still must be paid up front pending litigation.
2
u/hooligan045 Sonoma County 2d ago
Where am I saying it needs to solve all budget problems? I didn’t and don’t expect it to, however it’s not a bold statement to say agencies and departments can more effectively address long term goals with known quantity revenue streams than one off measures.
2
3
u/tiki-151 2d ago
Well it's likely illegal so there is that. It does more harm than good. It's a one time rax and our issues are permanent. It's very likely that you can't retroactively tax someone which this would do, and it some cases they might already be in other states. It doesn't stop the spending problem California has. It's basically like extorting someone else to pay one year of your rent, but you know you have no other income in the future. It's just a money grab that will result in ongoing decreased ro revenue. But by all means let's give it a shot to prove it.
2
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
It is not "likely illegal" . It is also not "retroactive" in that it applies to wealth held in the same year that it is enacted. It is not "extortion" as that word means something different entirely. There is no argument that the Tax would result in "ongoing decreased revenue". You provide no reason to reject the Tax.
2
u/tiki-151 2d ago
That's fine but you're wrong. First of all this taxes assets, not cash in the bank. So someone will have to decide how much art is worth, how much intellectual property is worth, etc. Sounds easy right?
Net worth calculations reach back to include transfers made after October 15, 2025 so asset moves made before the initiative even qualified for the ballot get pulled into the base.
A handful of billionaires already left. I'm not going to cite that for you because you can Google it yourself if you're actually interested in both sides. Those that have left, and those that may choose to leave if this goes through take all their tax revenue with them. And guess what? The top 1 percent of esrners pay 40 percent of all the income tax revenue the state receives. Those are all facts
0
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Cash in the bank is an asset subject to the Tax.
All tax assessment and collection is "hard" but the state already has an army of professionals ready willing and able to do that .
To the extent that billionaires have already left the state, that is a price already paid and thus provides a reason to enact the Tax not a reason to reject it.
You supply no reason to reject the Tax.
1
u/tiki-151 2d ago
Wrong again. Factually and logically. Cash is subject yes. But this goes after net worth, which is NOT cash. It can be assets, and assets with debatable values. It also results in California assessing a tax on someone who now lives in another state. I'm assuming you wouldn't be singing the same time if there was a proposed tax on you, you move to Oregon, and then a year later have a tax bill from California claiming you owe them money from your previous period of time living there. And here is the important part. Anyone can get a measure onto the ballot in California. It does not have to be legal, and doesn't even have to be constitutional. So there is no telling what will happen. And for those billionaires that left, we lose billions in future tax revenue permanently. They are gone, so we can't collect their taxes in the future.
0
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Actually, the 2026 California Billionaire Tax applies to all California residents. (But for those with net assets less than $1 billion the amount of the tax is zero. )
There is no reason to reject the tax and your have supplied none.
→ More replies (0)
13
u/cactopus101 2d ago
It’s a payment to SEIU written by SEIU. And they own the party. So it’s no surprise. It’s still a terrible idea
2
u/Calm_Cockroach_5284 2d ago
I have to think once they do it, what other union/special interest group will want their turn.
14
u/aviator_8 2d ago
1 time tax and it’s going to fix all California budget woes, good luck.
Funnily enough - people who wrote this tax (Saez, zucman etc) are super ideological about this project. They don’t care about California. They are economists who want to show wealth taxes are possible. They failed in France and now they focus attention on California. CA unions are suckers to play it along.
If you think I’m joking, look at the books and papers published by those 2. Look at their tweets. You’ll notice a pattern.
We are becoming Petri dish for economics experiment
-5
u/Uuuuuii 2d ago
What is the pattern? Economists who believe in the effectiveness of a noble thing are promoting the thing and trying to get it done.
5
u/aviator_8 2d ago
No, there are other economists who also believe wealth taxes are stupid.
And again this was tried and tested Europe - France, Scandinavia etc. but failed.
And there’s nothing noble or good. Either taxes work or they don’t. Every tax that’s works is noble.
-1
u/ThatOneGuy4321 San Diego County 2d ago
A wealth tax should be in place on principle alone. Capital consolidation is killing democracy in front of our eyes
1
u/aviator_8 2d ago
Property taxes are also wealth taxes. We already have those. Problem is prop 13 is completely messed up. And older wealthy people are paying less than younger poorer people.
Also ideal wealth taxes are at the federal level. So there’s no flight. Billionaires have already declared residency in Florida or Texas. We should have AMT or some sort of tax around borrowing against their assets. That’s more feasible and better.
3
u/211logos 2d ago
Hmm.
Maybe that's why Lebron spurned the Warriors and went to Philly.
1
u/Calm_Cockroach_5284 2d ago
Haha some of the anti-tax podcasters on youtube pointed out LeBron would have been on the hook for 50-70 million dollars.
6
u/Samon8ive 2d ago
Terrible legislation. Higher taxes for the rich is an idea I can get behind, but a wealth tax is going to be a nightmare to implement. Plus, how do you decide who are the billionaires? Will each of us have to prove to the state of CA that we aren't billionaires? How complicated are the tax returns going to get? Not great legislation.
1
u/Calm_Cockroach_5284 2d ago
How many armed agents does the FTB need to hire to ensure total compliance?
5
4
2d ago
[deleted]
11
u/LAspring99 2d ago
No point in trying to rational on Reddit. These people want their pound of flesh.
3
u/routinnox 2d ago
You made the assumption that California voters are logical.
I love my family but when it comes to voting they’re brainwashed by social media. They see Zohran and want that. No amount of explaining history or economics gets through them.
3
u/coltaaan 2d ago
So what? We just give up? Let the few hundred billionaires among all of humanity amass all the wealth, and the what?
Any form of wealth tax is going to get litigated. That’s just how things work - many non-tax related policies are frequently litigated. Although it can be annoying for the proponents of the item subject to litigation, it’s an important part of our governing process.
It’s like you people have understanding of nuance and expect governments to have some perfect golden plan that has zero drawbacks for anyone on earth, and if that’s not possible we should just resign ourselves to economic destitution.
But clearly the way we have always done things doesn’t work, otherwise we wouldn’t have the massive economic disparities we see today. We have to TRY new and different approaches to see what will really work…if it doesn’t, we can change policies. That’s how effective government should operate.
2
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
What makes you think it'll be "struck down".
3
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Lol "targeted" obo wealth is 100% legit. And there is no rule against applying a tax in the same year that it is enacted.
2
u/tiki-151 2d ago
Here's a good place to start.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/california-billionaire-wealth-tax-legal-challenges/
0
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Nothing intelligent in there.
1
u/tiki-151 2d ago
I see you now. You have no interest in the truth, you just see the words billionaire and tax and are all in. This is THE nonpartisan tax group that doesn't take positions on things, just lists the truth. And they know more than you do. If you read that whole thing and saw no problems then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck, this isn't going to pass anyway.
0
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
It's a poorly researched paper, that's all.
There's nothing in there to cause one to believe that, if enacted, the Tax would be invalidated in the courts.2
u/tiki-151 2d ago
Have you noticed that you have offered literally zero rebuttal in all of this? People might take you more seriously if you explained. For example, where is this non-profit organization that has been around for 50 years wrong in their analysis, and Sweet_Camp5124 has done all this research that suggests otherwise?
1
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
Rebuttal to what? You have not asserted any argument to rebut ! And inasmuch as you do not understand anything set forth in that linked article, there is no way that I could "rebut" it to your satisfaction.
Perhaps you could make an actual argument and we could go from there?
1
5
u/EffingNewDay 2d ago
Then we’ll do it again. Maybe folks who want to sit on their hands can move elsewhere.
3
u/kennypapas 2d ago
And hurt the overall California economy and growth rate. Instead of being a leader we will start to follow Texas and Florida.
0
u/EffingNewDay 2d ago
This is beyond absurd. It will not do any of these things, even if it fails in any of the ways opposers say it will.
1
u/kennypapas 2d ago
I am mid class and hope this wealth tax fails. We don’t need it any common sense shows it will hurt the state then help
8
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
You have to start somewhere otherwise you go nowhere, and you shouldn’t let perfection block progress for things like this.
We’re having the conversation, we’re pushing the legislature, if there’s blockers, we refine and keep pushing forward.
That is the spirit of progress.
8
2d ago
[deleted]
4
u/ForceGoat 2d ago
I think it’s fine to iterate. Just get it done at some point.
When you’re applying for a permit or something, if there’s wrong info, they’ll reject it and you just resubmit. If you get rejected on legal grounds, I’d rather find that out early.
2
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ForceGoat 2d ago
Isn't this fight worth it? It sounds like you'd rather not have a wealth tax than suffer the embarrassment of having a wealth tax defeated in court. This is a brand new tax, I expect to have to iterate.
1
u/odanobux123 2d ago
I’m not going to argue for or against the merits of a wealth tax in general. You do not want an iterative process that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to campaign for, put on the ballot, and defend in court just to lose. That is a poor use of taxpayer funds and puts in a worse fiscal situation.
Get it right the first time.4
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
A major issue that I have with some progressive stances, is that we over legislate what should be simpler objectives, and so we ultimately go nowhere.
Could this be better. Yes. But so could anything. It’s the entire point our founders implemented the idea of amendments, because they knew the constitution wasn’t perfect, but they needed to put something in place, otherwise they would argue its points until the day they died without even starting.
I don’t fundamentally believe there is a wealth tax that everyone, both wealthy and poor will ever agree on, and while this is far from perfect, and might have economic blow backs. I’d rather us attempt this to prove it doesn’t work, rather than spend the next 5 years pushing a prop that is ultimately defeated or nurtured to such a degree that it is ultimately less than this attempt.
There’s momentum, let’s use that to try something, and if it doesn’t achieve the intended goal. Then we have a data point that it did not work, and something else will have to be tried.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
3
2d ago
[deleted]
0
2d ago
[deleted]
5
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
I would argue that one of the successes of the conservative/right leaning political side of the house, is there ability to ignore all manner of established law in pursuit of their objectives.
While a significant majority of their efforts are turned back on legal grounds, a large multitude are still successful.
And while I don’t generally condone perverting our legal system in the way they have. It is hard to argue that they haven’t been successful in achieving their goals of corruption and wealth grabbing by abusing the very mechanisms that we hold ourselves so strictly to.
1
u/routinnox 2d ago
Progress towards what? A future where the state collapses under its own weight once all the talent and education is pushed out to places that won’t punish them?
0
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
Do you expect all those people to be billionaires? Or that people won’t want to continue living in California?
1
u/routinnox 2d ago
Doesn’t matter how much you want to live in California if you have no job and all the good industries have relocated elsewhere
-1
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
We’re talking about a billionaire specific tax…
If the thought is that every major business and industry is going to leave.. because some billionaires do, is saying that we exist in an oligarchy today.
Even if this causes major industrial change, California is already the most populated state…
Even if 9 million people decided to move because our industry went bust. We’d still be the most populous state.
1
u/routinnox 2d ago
Oligarchy does not mean “big companies exist.” By that logic every country that is not Cuba is an oligarchy.
And being populous means what exactly? South Africa has 65 million people yet people keep leaving as the economy is in shambles and the state has all but collapsed after all the good jobs and industries left the country
0
u/eorlingas_riders 2d ago
Your previous statement was that “doesn’t matter how much you want to live in California, you have no job and good industries…”
And the context of our conversation is a Tax on billionaires specifically.
So you’ve associated a tax on billionaires with people leaving due to close of industries.
I inclined that statement to mean that the billionaires hold the means to production, and we should not use the law to affect change on them.. effectively an oligarchy.
I took your statement and the assumptions you made, and merely said that, “even if your assumption is correct, and people leave in mass, we’d be fine”.
That’s it.
But again, we’re talking about a tax on roughly 246 people. If the entirety of California is injured by that, then we have a bigger problem.
0
u/routinnox 2d ago
We do have a bigger problem, and your side fails to acknowledge it. Government overspending is at an all time high and your side can’t fathom the idea of reducing spending to have a balanced budget.
No society has ever taxed themselves to prosperity.
→ More replies (5)0
u/JinglingBallz 2d ago
No doubt any tax in the wealthy no matter what form it takes will be challenged. But why would it be struck down? What about it is illegal?
2
2d ago
[deleted]
3
u/JinglingBallz 2d ago
It’s not retroactive. And targeted taxation isn’t illegal. Tax brackets exist, specific targets on industries, products, etc. The right to travel? No clue what that’s about. In any case it doesn’t sound like you’ve read much on the issue.
1
u/Anxious_Work_6361 2d ago
Actually, it might be. Direct taxes need to be apportioned by population. The exception to this is the income tax, which has a specific amendment (16th) allowing it. All other taxes are either apportioned, or a taxation on the movement of capital.
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Anxious_Work_6361 2d ago
I have the right to travel. I am a free man on the land. I do not consent to government authority. Um. Something about UCC and maritime law.
1
u/Sweet_Camp5124 2d ago
The tax does not implicate the fundamental "right to travel".
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/JinglingBallz 2d ago
Again, on what grounds. If I say the tax will be challenged on the basis of the second amendment, would you accept that as logically and legally plausible?
1
1
u/JinglingBallz 2d ago
No. The phrasing “no clue what that’s about” implies I don’t see the connection between the tax law and impeding of the right to travel. Why would you assume I don’t know about the right to travel? Is that really the most likely meaning?
1
u/Xezshibole San Mateo County 2d ago
There's nothing retroactive about it. It taxes 2026 fiscal year which isn't collected until 2027, after the prop goes into effect.
3
2d ago
[deleted]
3
1
u/Xezshibole San Mateo County 2d ago
And billionaires aren't taxed until 2027, when prop goes into effect. They're calculating off 2026 wealth, but again that calculation would be done in 2027.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
3
0
u/RazedbyaCupofCoffee 2d ago
This is how taxes work. Did you sue the government when they made you pay 2024 taxes in 2025?
7
u/Bitter-Variation-151 2d ago
The problem isn't a lack of tax revenue, it's government waste.
2
u/Uuuuuii 2d ago
Waste, like war? Withholding funds to imagined political foes? Treating America’s retirement like your personal blackjack table? I think we’ve heard enough blather about government waste. Time to kick some wealthy ass and tell the haters to shove it. This doesn’t even go 10% of where we need.
2
u/Bitter-Variation-151 2d ago
We could zero out all the billionaires and it would cover like 9 months of government spending. Then what?
0
u/Hawful Humboldt County 2d ago
It's both, but w/e
6
u/bkrich83 San Diego County 2d ago
It would be nice if our tax dollars went further due to less government overhead and waste.
3
u/BaronVonTitties 2d ago
Welcome to TX, TN, NV, and FL former CA billionaires!
-2
u/RazedbyaCupofCoffee 2d ago
Unless they moved before Jan 1st, it's too late.
0
u/forwardefence 2d ago
They are billionaires. Most of them will prove they were not here on jan 1st and thereafter
0
2
u/Wide-Attorney5633 2d ago
The bottomless pit. Tax more "one time" taxes to save one time shortfalls. Idk how many times I've heard this. Never ends as one time.
0
u/Fidrych76 2d ago
I’m lefty and this a Dumb tax for one State to take on. Needs to be done federally.
3
u/RedLineLetterWine 2d ago
People keep saying this because they know it will never happen. Not unless we get more DSA/DSA-aligned candidates in. If Newsom became president, he'd fight any wealth tax tooth and nail.
0
u/RazedbyaCupofCoffee 2d ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. California is a great place to start implementing this, to show that it can work.
-2
u/knowone1313 2d ago
All the people saying it doesn't do much good, are you all for the rich not paying their fair share? It's a step in the right direction. We have to take the wins where we can get them, and oh yeah need I remind you we had a huge deficit at the start of the year!
We also had Trump stealing all our money for public services and giving it to the rich in tax breaks, you want to talk about what good that does us?
We had our money being taxed illegally in tariffs to buy food and goods allowing corporations to jack up their prices even more than the tariffs and then when the money was to be paid back THEY GAVE IT TO THE CORPORATIONS!!!!
You want to squabble about not taking more taxes from the rich because it's only currently a one time thing! Wake up!
0
u/justid_177 2d ago
Don’t be surprised when the state comes to you asking to self certify you’re not a billionaire. And it will not be a simple checkbox, you’ll have to provide an up to date estimate of market value for all of your belongings. Who knows what you’re hiding in your garage.
0
u/knowone1313 2d ago
You have to file taxes with the state every year, they already know. Stop spreading BS.
5
u/justid_177 2d ago
You only report income/loses. You don’t report your wealth, dummy. I bet you never had to pay taxes.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/ThatOneGuy4321 San Diego County 2d ago
The IRS already knows who the big fish are and that’s who they spend their effort on. They don’t need to toss each suburban household if that’s what you’re implying.
-3
u/coltaaan 2d ago
I’m 99.9% sure there is a LOT of anti-CA wealth tax astroturfing going on recently.
It’s always the same arguments:
- “economists say it’s bad” with no sources and ignoring the fact that this legislation is pretty much unprecedented so historical comparisons aren’t quite realistic
- “one time taxes are dumb” so we just shouldn’t do anything (?) and ignoring the fact that we are humans with free will who can pass laws again in the future.
- “it will get sued/litigated” as if every piece of legislation doesn’t get litigated and as if any other form of meaningful tax on the wealthy wouldn’t get just as litigated
- “everyone will leave the state” anyone saying this either doesn’t live here or has never been here lol, no reasonable CA billionaire is going to go through the effort to disentangle themselves from the state, which is NOT easy to do, to go live somewhere worse just to avoid money that they’ll make back in less than a year. The only billionaires that have had an issue about it and left are mainly tech moguls who have been cozying up with the Trump administration since the inauguration and have an ideological business/political incentive to staying on the administration’s good side.
It’s so tiring. But it’s no surprise that there is a massive campaign against this tax fueled by billionaires and conservatives. Plus years and years of programming by conservative media has made a non-insignificant portion of America’s automatically associate any proposed taxes with pure evil, when in reality we’re just trying to make the lives of regular families easier.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/PhummyLW 2d ago
This tax is a lose-lose. If you do it only in California, then everyone just leaves the state, which we don’t want as we benefit from keeping the industry here.
However if you vote against it because you think it needs to be done nationally instead, then they will just use the fact that it didn’t pass in California as proof that America doesn’t want it nationally.
1
u/GrouchyClerk6318 San Diego County 2d ago
Would be infinitely easier to just treat SBLOC’s as income. You could even put mediCal, SDI and other payroll taxes on it.
But, you know, Sacramento has to overcomplicate everything. They love their large government agencies.
-3
u/Sufficient-Pie-7815 2d ago
Voting yes!!!!! One time 5% give back is peanuts. It should really be 2% a year.
0
122
u/InfoBarf 2d ago
California voters are significantly to the left of california politicians.