top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 4 months ago

This looks like Newsom is acting in bad faith.

If Newsom actually wanted this tax in any form, he'd support the current California version, and advocate for a carve-out exception for those already taxed previously under California's version from the future Federal version.

Instead, he's trying to torpedo the California one that actually has a chance at being implement.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    People who fall for this guy's bullshit and think he is on our side are so sad and insufferable.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    He knows it won't pass at the national level, so he doesn't mind supporting it in that case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    There is that and the fact that it should be a national thing to shut down avoidance options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • But we don't want them here and California, except for the billionaires and their lackeys and orange county and Fresno and certain undesirable transients plaguing sacramento is a genuinely wonderful place to live if you're not one of the fire-slaves or something.

    Fixing one of those problems would still be a success, and it would deny them something nice that they want. Which would also be nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Can also be in the sense that if you enact it in California then they can pick up and leave for Texas or Florida and still mess up the country’s politics but leave California without the ability to get any taxes from them. Whereas if you enact it nationwide then they’d have to skip the country entirely to dodge it which would be more difficult and not advantage states that don’t agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    No one really leaves. Pack up and move to a shithole flyover state? Yeah right.

    Oh and if I’m wrong? Good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago

    There was a net internal migration of ~300k people out of California last year, some mega rich have moved too. Red states gaining population and money get boosted electoral college votes and more political influence to sway the entire country rather than just their own states. They’re not disappearing into a vacuum unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • 30 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 37 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    While against the one in his own state. He is a two faced centrist, family friends with the Pelosi'. Won't get change electing him.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    Except he's right, millionaires are tied to billionaires, billionaires leave and the millionaires that are actually paying taxes will also leave.

    The wealth tax needs to be something every state calls for. It can't just be some states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Except this is not supported by evidence at all did any of those who promised to actually leave nyc after Mamdami won for example?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Oh, I didn't realize Mamdani had taxed the billionaires in NY the same way.

    Also, yes — 6 billionaires left California over the proposed tax. Sure, there are plenty left and it's not like they totally broke California as a result — to say it's unfounded is sort of ridiculous though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    To make a blanket statement about them leaving as a group is just as ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago*

    In 2023, there were 188 billionaires in California. That number's probably much higher now, since the ultra-rich have gotten much fatter under Trump at the expense of everyone else.

    So we're talking about 3% who claim they're fucking off because of the proposed tax? And it's questionable whether they left or just said they would, and also if their stated reason was the real one.

    So: not unfounded, just a grossly exaggerated impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    If they're not paying taxes, why would anyone want them to stay?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Because that money was extracted, in large part, from the California working class. Billionaires shouldn't be able to just leave, they should be forced to pay their due to whoever they got their money from.

    To say there's no precedent is ridiculous. We're talking pennies when compared to their net worth, of course not all of them are going to instantaneously evaporate. If we see this tax and more coming from California and California alone then yes they will just leave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Billionaires and millionaires generally like being around infrastructure and companies. Something that only left leaning states tend to excel at.

    They have not been shown to leave in any great enough amount to actually matter. Unless you have something other than just 6 billionaires leaving CA?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I don't know the tax laws, but how many can set up their "primary" address in some other state (like Wyoming, which has the county with the wealthiest income in the country) and dodge all/most of California's taxes?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    You are getting downvoted, but you are correct.

    Suppose California passes this - people will just set up in another state. Playing one state off of another this way is a losing proposition.

    It needs to be at the federal level - you should not be able to set up your primary residence or nexus of business in another state and flee all responsibility to your country just because that state has whored itself out as a "business-friendly" one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    We are wayy past billionaire tax. We need a logarithmic wealth tax with a soft wealth cap.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    Get this guy outta here

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago*

    It's because one, he has control over, so naturally, gotta put a stop to that. The other, he's sure won't happen, so it's safe to "support" it, in order to entice rubes into voting for him.

    Again I say, this is a sheep in wolfs clothing. He's a more polished fetterman. You should not support him.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    There absolutely should be taxes on the billionaire class: 50% capital gains over a certain amount, limitations on borrowing against stock assets, increased income tax on income over $1m, and no cutoff on social security tax, just to name a few. That class should not exist and taxes are a great way to move that forward.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    He knows a national tax won't be happening.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago
    [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    And if he got elected Prez he’d drop the national one.

    Just more virtue signaling bs by a useless establishment neo-lib.

  • source