Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
Critics really need to start digging through Bullshit Mountain for a new excuse.
Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
So fucking what. We've been held hostage by these people long enough. Call their bluff. Some might leave, but fuck em. Don't let the door hit them on the way out.
They need us. We don't need them.
"I'll move my business from a state with 55 million people, good education, and higher quality of life to Wyoming."
No further explanation needed. A Wyoming joke writes itself.
it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth
Threatening with a good time.
California has far TOO many billionaires, and it's devastating to the economy at large
I would vote for this if all it did was like money on the ground and burn it. Any dollar they don't have is a dollar that they're not screwing me over with inflated asset prices.
What are the advantages of this measure over an actual tax increase? I feel like the state will spend as much money fighting to uphold the measure in court as it would receive. If you’re voting for it, cool. But this issue needs to be addressed at the Federal level.
The advantage is this is the one that’s on the ballot. We do not have a tax increase to vote for, we do have this to vote for. And ‘they might fight it’ is a terrible reason to not try.
They won’t “might fight it”. They absolutely will fight it.
Oh no! They’re going to fight it, everyone give up!
Taking any money from billionaires is a worthy cause, because hoarding wealth only lets them convince people it means they can so whatever they want.
Yes thanks for the knee jerk response. My questioning was about whether this is the best strategy to address the wealth hoarding. But sure, let’s do this feel good vote no matter how ineffective it will be…. This is no long term solution, and the “one time only” wording is super suspicious.
there have been zero comments about this bill saying that this was the ideal best strategy. why bring it up?
e: I think the negative response is because it feels like you are advocating for less billionaire taxes, rather than good faith discussion about how to make sure they are taxed appropriately.
Wealth taxes target accumulated wealth. If you're trying to reduce income inequality that is the only possible measure that will help - aside from the longer term of estate taxes. Taxing income only slows the accumulation - which doesn't actually matter if someone is already sitting on a mountain of wealth, and like Elon, using it to attack democratic society.
You’re right but there isn’t a tax increase targeting billionaires at the federal level being considered. This is what we have available today.
Because we benefit from billionaires not being billionaires.
It doesn't matter if we "get" the money, what matter is them not having it
But this issue needs to be addressed at the Federal level.
Oh really?
Did you get that from Lil Gavy Newsom?
Or from one of the other neoliberals going back past the civil rights movement where they keep waffling between "Incremental change is the only path" and "what are you doing, we cant do something that solves some of the problem incrementally!"
Cuz like...
I really thought everyone could notice by now the one unifying strategy is that you say whatever is happening wont and we should stop trying, yet here you are repeating that same stupid fucking shit that obviously hasn't worked for generations like it's a novel fucking idea.
If you legitimately didnt know that shit, that's fine.
Just understand you talking is fucking us over. And everyone (especially you) would be better off if you read more and typed less.
This measure isn’t “trying”
...
Ok then, tell me when it passes then.
And why people are still going to vote on it and why Newsom is trying to kill it before it passes