They did a really good job on ads. Don’t look up how much they spent just on fooling the population.

A Simpsons meme saying Won’t somebody please think of the billionaires?

top 84 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 85 points 2 days ago (24 children)

I'm apparently so out of touch I can't even fathom how this happened.

I know there was obviously billionaire campaigning but what was their argument? Just lies that it would somehow affect the average person? Or 60% of the state think they're temporarily embarrassed billionaires?

This is like last cycle when we voted to keep prison slavery legal.. I thought ok who is going to vote this way? Like what the fuck is wrong with people?

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (16 children)

    All of that, that the bill isn’t perfect, and there might be loopholes, and it’s hard to actually figure out what “assets” are, and on and on. Never mind the fact that any starting point would be better than nothing.

    I mean even fucking Planned Parenthood came out against it [1], which is profoundly disappointing.

    Sergey Brin alone supposedly spent at least $100 million to defeat it [2]. The motherfuckers even funded three different poison pill props to neutralize it. Pretty much every tactic they could use they did. Newsome and Becerra being against it didn’t help either.

    1: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/planned-parenthood-billionaire-tax-california-22336650.php

    2: https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/10/google-co-founder-sergey-brin-has-now-spent-100-million-to-fight-the-billionaire-tax/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    Surprisingly level headed response from Jensen Huang. 5% is a drop in the bucket for these billionaires and they act like it's going to impoverish them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago

    The billionaires were panicking because their wealth was by the controlling shares in their own company. There can be two types of shares, ones that have decision making power and others that don't, just for trading. If billionaires had to give up their controlling shares to pay the tax bill, that would dilute their control. They didn't want that.

    Jensen's shares are the other kind. He can pay the tax bill without losing control. He's more ok with this than the Zuck. Zuck's entire wealth comes from owning 99% of the controlling shares.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    He's a decent guy, or he was, before he put himself in bad company. NVIDIA has never done layoffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    Being a billionaire automatically excludes you from being a “good guy.”

    10 million people starve to death or die from preventable disease each year. Who the hell could have a conscience and become a billionaire in the face of that?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I mean even fucking Planned Parenthood came out against it [1], which is profoundly disappointing.

    ???? TF?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    would provide only a one-time revenue boost at a time when California needs ongoing funding to recover from the impact of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act,

    They are taking the long winning strategy of "perfect is the enemy of the good". If we don't pass a one time tax now, maybe that will by some mysterious mechanism cause a more durable tax later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    three different poison pill props to neutralize it.

    Two poison pill propositions, 41 and 42.

    But...while we can't say for sure yet, at this point in time, extrapolating from the results that are in, Prop 40 probably lost outright on its own, independently of Prop 41 and Prop 42 (though Prop 42 does look likely to pass).

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

    Wow that took a while to find exactly their rationale for not supporting it and:

    would provide only a one-time revenue boost at a time when California needs ongoing funding to recover from the impact of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act,

    So it's a 'let the perfect be the enemy of the good' scenario. It's not good enough so better to not do anything in hopes that it will inspire more durable approach.... Ugh...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    If it was just that, I would agree, but the problems went deeper than just "it's a start but not good enough"

    The beneficiaries of the fund was a SINGLE union, not the whole state, and there were poison pill provisions ensuring that we couldn't do it again in future, so this would have been a one and done, not a prescident like we all hoped. So basically it was bound to fail to accomplish what we would hope even if it passed and would likely make things more difficult to get an actual tax, instead of just a narrowly applied windfall

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    I mean even fucking Planned Parenthood came out against it [1], which is profoundly disappointing.

    Planned Parenthood is not just a fucked up, condescending, outdated, eugenicist name. It's a right-wing organization (liberals). Don't expect much from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I’ve been telling everyone the entire election cycle that we were being propagandized to hell here in CA. Every single commercial break had at least one ad about how the wealth tax was going to be used to tax regular Californians because of a “loophole” (incredibly dishonest reading of the text that almost certainly wouldn’t have survived court had anyone tried it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    SO many anti wealth tax ads reaching all kinds of demographics too. I watch some foriegn language content and would get spammed with propaganda ads in said language. That’s when I knew it was done for

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I think the rejection is pretty straightforward... It's a lack of trust. California doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. When you couple that with some well known cases of "taxes on the wealthy" morphing into taxes on the ordinary over time (like AMT), it makes voters suspicious that this proposition was actually for it's stated purpose, and even though slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, people don't always employ logic when voting.

    There are other factors too of course, but the bill's sponsors failed to overcome the general distrust voters have of their elected officials and California tax authorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago

    It definitely does have a revenue problem, trumps OBBB gutted federal funding for medi-cal and cal-fresh and the state can't cover those gaps without more tax revenue.

    Unless you want to say that food and healthcare for the poor are "spending problems"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Billionaires don't need arguments when they can carpet bomb the state with bullshit advertisements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    bingo. they convinced a huge number of people that they would be getting taxed more (even though they aren't billionaires) if this billionaire tax went through. People are stupid and VERY lazy and didn't check the sources of where this bullshit was coming from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I thought 40 was gonna be an easy one... then I briefly brought it up with my gymmates and... ufff... They just automatically vote against anything related to taxes. It didn't seem like they actually read what the prop was. It literally just affected like 200 people out of millions....

    Local propaganda branded 40 as an "everyone tax". Straight up lies, but people don't read stuff I guess? IDK.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    They just automatically vote against anything related to taxes. It didn't seem like they actually read what the prop was. It literally just affected like 200 people out of millions....

    And that’s how we get red states!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    but people don’t read stuff I guess?

    I mean people voted for Trump....3 times....stating he's a good businessman so he can run the country when there's mountains of documentation proving he's a fraud and failed businessman. I remember in high school there were kids that couldn't make it through a sentence when it was their turn to read out loud.

    If there's anything the last decade has taught me, it's that the majority of humans, especially Americans, are duuuuuuuuumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 2 days ago
    [–] 36 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    I saw ads being run claiming they would take your 401k from you. Total bull but it worked.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago* (6 children)

    Is it bullshit though? This exact proposal, sure. But every other tax that was initially applied only to the wealthy eventually expanded to hit the entire population. Look at income taxes. They applied initially only to the ultra wealthy. Why should wealth taxes be any different? It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you can point to actual historical examples of a very thing happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Then you intervene at the point where it is about to happen, not when it might one day maybe happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Historically that intervention hasn't worked out is their point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    That is some crap that is convenient for the billionaires, we can't possibly implement any progressive tax strategy lest it degrades from a progressive tax strategy.

    I'll admit the law is a slog of a read, but it is pretty clearly scoped to one time and requiring over a billion in assets. There's no open door for expanding it to broader set of people. The folks bemoaning that it's unclear on what counts as an "asset"... That point doesn't matter because the common voter doesn't have any asset that could be in that class...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • You're letting partisanship blind your reason. The income tax in the US originally 1% on incomes over $3000 and 7% on incomes over $500,000. That would be like a 1% income applied to incomes over $100k and 7% applied to incomes over $16 million.

    The US federal income tax was indeed initially something only applied to the very wealthy. The upper middle class paid a nominal 1% income tax, but only the truly wealthy had to pay substantial income tax. It expanded over time to hit the entire population.

    So no, it's not bullshit. Taxes expand over time. I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy, but I also try not to let my personal biases cloud my reason. I suggest you do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 2 days ago (14 children)

    Imagine not being a billionaire and voting to not tax them.

    Humans are real dumb. I'm honestly shocked we aren't still throwing feces at each other while arguing who gets the best spot in the cave.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    They ran so many ads. I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they'll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.

    Honestly that is a very fair point. Federal income tax was initially passed as a wartime measure and only applied to the wealthiest people. Over time inflation and necessity lowered the threshold lower and lower until everyone had to file income tax.

    I'm in favor of wealth taxes on billionaires, but you have to admit, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Someone with a few million in a 401k is fantastically wealthy by the standards of someone working paycheck to paycheck for minimum wage. Why wouldn't they support a wealth tax on people's 401k balances?

    The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply. We have clear historical examples of taxes that were originally meant to only apply to the rich growing in scope until they were applied to the whole population. It's actually a pretty likely outcome if wealth taxes became more common. Every other tax expanded to encompass the entire population, why not wealth taxes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago

    Nothing stopping us from voting people in who will raise income tax brackets so only the top 10% pays them.

    Nothing but us and our lack of imagination. We can do the same with wealth taxes and the 1%.

    Or we can surrender in advance and allow them to continue our March to poverty.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply.

    It is absolutely a fallacy to say we can't possibly levy a tax on a billionaire lest it, ultimately becomes a tax on us.

    Already they have a pretty sweet deal compared to most folks, most folks have most of their 'wealth' taxed as property. Since real property is a tiny sliver of their 'wealth', they get to keep more percentage wise than the random person, despite needing it less.

    To say any tax might evolve into a tax on the common man is like saying we can't regulate nuclear weapons, lest it becomes a regulation preventing people from having scissors. Yes, there is the example of income tax and a mistake was made at the time they went to expand it. The problem was not the initial tax, it was the point of expansion. There's no reason the expansion of the tax should have any lower barrier than getting it levied in the first place.

    Now if you argue that the measure was somehow flawed in that it failed to limit the scope and explicitly opened the door to things, but it was the opposite, a one-time, billionaire only scoped event.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Income taxes were added to the constitution in 1913 and weren’t limited to only the most wealthy people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • In inflation adjusted dollars, the tax applied a 1% income tax to incomes over $100k and a 7% tax to incomes over $16 million. Yes, it was originally intended only for the wealthy. The upper middle class paid a tiny nominal 1%. The only people paying any substantial income tax were the extremely wealthy.

    I get it. You want to tax the rich, so do I. But you're letting that desire cloud your judgment and reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Lots of comments in all the blue tsunami posts talking about how the public must finally "get it". They now think like rational humans who will choose what's best for a society and in their own best interest.

    At best this is reactionary revenge voting meant to punish the ruling party for the ways policies have impacted them recently. I think the next election we'll be right back to a split government with no power to undo any of the techbro billionaire fascist ratcheting that has happened the last decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago

    I hate people.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Ah fuck, this is how I find out?

    Must not have even been close if it's already decided, we take forever for this typically.

    Oh well. Fuck em, I want a national, if not international solution anyway. If Blue Texas is any reminder, there is no war but class war and Californian Corporate Dems aren't an ally on that. If anything, we need a national movement of pissed off poor folk to lead the charge on this.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    It wasn't close at all. I could tell it had failed not long after polls closed from the results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    Sad. Though, I'm not with the others willing to just blame ads nor "taxes = bad" folk... there's just too many people who are the Gavin Newsom type. I'm honestly not at all surprised, every state is technically purple, including ours.

    At least everyone I've met today has been so positive and happy, it's a real change from the Los Angeles I'm used to.

    Edit: still 6 million votes uncounted, including mine. AP decided to wait on calling 40, 41, and 42 but it doesn't look good. LA is very pro-40, but neighboring Orange County is the opposite. God I hate them, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    I know a small business owner that was afraid if this passed, “they” would come for him next.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    "are 'they' in the room with us right now?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago

    There are a lot of Californians that think they're a billionaire.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    I have a theory that neatly explains the ballot initiatives across the country: last night was a big night for turning out former Trump supporters that switched parties to punish Trump for high gas prices. They may have voted for Democrats, but they still hate taxes and trans people.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    It's not just thinking about the billionaires.

    It's also not thinking about the suffering people whose healthcare was stolen for these billionaires and will not be restored. Their plight is far more important than billionaires crying about taxes.

    TBH I'm so sick of hearing about these rich scumbags. Capitalist media focusing on billionaires is the usual bullshit, privileged distraction.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_California_Proposition_40)

    As tv ads continued to play, it affected how people thought about the proposition. Remember, people are really stupid and it's really easy to change their opinions on things.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

    people are really stupid

    Wrong. People are generally intelligent.

    Propaganda is just very effective, even against intelligent people, and most people don't have the extra time/energy or desire to investigate each prop. Which is a structural failure to not prioritize it, but that's the point. There are systems in place to make political research feel both not important and also very exhausting. You live in a society full of very intelligent people, a slice of those intelligent people use their positions of power to add layers upon layers of friction to the political system so that they can retain their power.

    You are not surrounded by idiots, but, you ARE ruled by criminals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (1 child)

    I guess to me, passing this seemed like a no-brainer and there isn't any amount of propaganda that could sway me on that. How people are so confused about voting in their interests is surprising to me. But I think you have an interesting point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago

    That's great, but just because you happen to be informed & engaged doesn't mean the people that aren't are stupid.

    I'm in favor of a wealth tax as a corrective measure, which is how this prop was structured, but on as a broader recurring tax I am against it. If I was less informed on this prop or otherwise held a stronger "If it's wrong to do it recurring then it's wrong always" position, then I would have voted against it. It doesn't take much effort to empathize with why people would be against new tax structures.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I am disgusted at this state and especially San Francisco.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    The ads were relentless! Every TV commercial, every YT video, all over socials. Unfortunately, it proves that flooding-the-zone works.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I feel very thankful the only political ads I see are hundreds of mailers clogging my mailbox and so many text messages I have to turn alerts off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    I throw out any political spam without reading them regardless of where they're from, and block/spam all political texts. I wish everyone did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    My problem with the texts is that you can tell them stop, but not only does that tell them you’re a real person, they send a follow up to say you unsubscribe which is just another text.

    We need regulation around this sort of thing. Like a no-call list.

    Edit: In the last two hours I’ve gotten two texts about Mississippi and three about Alaska, all from different numbers and despite responding to the first ones with “Stop”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    One day, I will become a billionaire, and then what?

    If we tax them, they’ll all leave!

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    The millions that Elon spent were worthless, but the millions that other billionaires spent in California creating 3 separate props that would ruin 40 and running against 40 worked.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    Can I just say my mail in ballot never got counted as far as I can tell, every past election we get notice from BallotTrax that the ballot was received and counted. No one I know got that notice; I got the BallotTrax "your ballot has shipped" mail but not that it was received and counted. I wonder if there's huge delays in processing mail in ballots, which might change results.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    I received it as a text:

    A message from California Secretary of State on behalf of County Registrar. Your ballot for the November 3, 2026, General Election was received and will be counted. Thank you for voting!

    You should be able to check your current status following the info here:

    https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status

    California always has delays in Getting everything through the system, a side effect of having reasonable election laws that let you mail in ballots up to election say, a huge population, and a thorough counting process. Be patient but follow up.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›