812
Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes (calmatters.org)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
319 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🤡 4
 

Not only has Gov. Gavin Newsom vocally opposed the proposed California billionaire tax, but he also wants to prevent the state from ever passing a wealth tax in the future.

On Friday he endorsed Proposition 42, a ballot measure that would cancel out Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax. Prop. 42 would prohibit retroactive taxes like the one-time 5% tax on assets that would apply to any billionaire who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026 if Prop. 40 passes.

But Prop. 42, funded and placed on the ballot by billionaire and Google co-founder Sergey Brin to defeat the billionaire tax, also would go further, by banning any new taxes on personal property.

That includes pensions and 401K accounts before retirees start drawing retirement income from them. It also includes other investments, financial assets, business holdings, art collections and all other forms of personal wealth that would be affected by the billionaire tax or any future wealth tax.

Newsom’s decision to support Prop. 42 runs counter to his own Democratic Party and some labor unions. It also aligns him with some of the wealthy tech donors with whom he’s maintained longstanding relationships dating back to his days as mayor of San Francisco.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's kind of ironic you assuming that people are liberals just because they disagree with you. And being upset that they call you a tanky for disagreeing with them. Something which I'm not doing.

Quite frankly I think we should abolish the state. But unfortunately when it comes to solidarity unless you and I have solid viable alternatives. That will directly impact their material conditions in a positive way. And realistically short of Revolution we don't. And I don't see anyone revolting here. Then we are unfortunately left to go with the majority when it comes to things like the national elections. Which again is why we shouldn't have such wide spread election. Or offices that centralized to require such. But non-participation doesn't improve the material conditions of anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Bud, it isn't an assumption when the action is both reliant on liberal beliefs, and the individuals openly express liberal values.

    Also, you don't get to pick that moral value for other people. As much as I believe we are obligated to exercise whatever power we are afforded, which includes a vote, I could never in good conscience tell someone they're a problem for refusing to participate in a system that has committed genocide against their people. Colonizers don't just colonize by explicitly and intentionally dominating other groups, they often do so by asserting that their "moral" philosophy is in everyone's best interest, even if that means the "unfortunate" reality that necessitates them deciding for others.

    The narrative you just created requires us to forget that vulnerable people have revolted against the US state for centuries. You're saying that their resistance only counts as something to put faith in when the privileged white people join in, and conveniently, that means we should just do what the privileged white people wany out of practicality. This is not the mindset of a reasonable, empathetic person, it is of someone whose politics are oriented around their own comfort; many of us do not enjoy that privilege.

    If the sole survivor of a Palestinian family does not want to vote, who the fuck are you or I to tell them they're immoral if they don't want to help their family's murderers do anything for some fake "greater good." For fuck's sake, you'd refuse them even that? Why should you have any right to tell a closeted trans person who's skirting through genocide that they aren't allowed to maintain some feeling of power or self-authorship by refusing this system their participation? What, them giving away their less than one percent of the vote gonna make all the privileged people listen to trans people for the first time fucking ever?

    These are people who have lost and given more than what we could ask of anyone simply by being victimized by this system, and they do not represent dominant voting trends even in the minority groups they represent. You want them to vote for your benefit, don't act like it is anything else. This discourse didn't become prominent in liberal discourses until they wanted to blame victims for not supporting the "good guys," and it's disgusting. If you're going to act like this is from whatever, socialist and/or anarchist voters, I'd love to see either stats that proves some sleeping giant lives among us, or an argument that targets them specifically without presuming to speak on the moral purity of victims.

    Fuck off with this fake shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Listen up bud. Most people, for better or worse aren't overtly political. That they share a belief with liberals doesn't make them any more "liberals" in any committed or devoted sense. Than myself having anarco communist views makes me a leninist or you a tanky. But you know who runs around calling people they disagree with "liberals" regularly? Tankies. You are legit doing what you are accusing others if doing. Two wrongs don't make a right either.

    If refusing to participate makes the material conditions worse. I can and will point it out all day. If you live in a state that will safely not go Republican if you don't participate. That is a unique circumstance and a privileged choice that you specifically are afforded. If you run around telling people generally to do that. Not knowing how that will impact anyone. Possibly extremely negatively. Such as getting vulnerable people to abstain or vote for the person that would victimize them more. (Which happened) You should expect criticism. And if you don't want it. Don't announce your vote/lack of it to the world. And we won't care. Everyone is entitled to vote whoever they want or not at all.

    I'm also quite well aware of what the United States is. But thanks for the unneeded lecture. I am a tribe member. Officially on the rolls. The United States has persecuted suppressed and slaughtered my people for hundreds of years. Canada too. I don't have any great sympathy for them. But I did get a chuckle out of this.

    I've honestly tried to keep our discussion very civil and fact-based. I'm starting to think that was a mistake. But can we at least agree. That we should be trying to make more allies and not enemies. That we shouldn't rush to Judgment of others even if they rush to Judgment of us. If we go looking for enemies we will find them or make them one way or the other. And neither of us needs that. There are already enough actual enemies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent