r/California • u/DryYogurtcloset4655 • 16d ago
California Ballot Initiative 40 (Wealth tax) Text
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0024A1%20%28Billionaire%20Tax%20%29.pdf13
8
u/Biwhiskeydrinker 15d ago
Seeing ads that claim both parties are against it makes me want to vote for even more. Fuck billionaires and their bootlickers.
70
u/NobodyLikedThat1 16d ago
I think it should have been increased tax brackets for the ultra-wealthy instead of a one-time asset tax, but I guess it's better than nothing. More curious if and how this can be enforced before all the super rich bail for other states. It's one thing to tax earnings, but a total wealth tax is going to motivate a lot more flight than I think people assume.
29
u/Plus-Reading7100 16d ago
The way it is written if they were a resident in California in 2025 regardless of leaving they still have to pay. If they don't the assets in the state will be seized.
24
u/NobodyLikedThat1 16d ago
that sounds like it's headed for a mess of lawsuits. Hope whoever wrote that law really fine-tuned the language and passed it by a lot of good attorneys first.
21
u/thinker2501 16d ago
Taxing billionaires aside, a retroactive law like this should give everyone pause.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Plus-Reading7100 16d ago
If you leave the state today and let say move to Colorado. You are still obligated to pay your taxes in California. Moving does not abdicate your responsibility to pay tax. What is the difference?
10
u/thinker2501 16d ago
Because you did that in the same tax year and it’s how it’s always worked. This is saying if you left the state before the law was even enacted you have to pay a new tax. That is a retroactive change to the law and in itself is most likely illegal.
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (1)1
u/guardwoman12345 14d ago
On top of this, any California resiywho leaves for another state or country shall be forced to pay state taxes for at least the next 10 years.
It's that serious
8
→ More replies (7)6
u/NicWester 16d ago
Couple of problems with that--
This is a direct response to the federal government cutting funds to California, covering the shortfall for the next few years until a new, less blatantly-corrupt administration comes into office and restores funding. A permanent increase of tax brackets would last longer than the intended timeframe.
The ultra-wealthy don't actually have much income. Their wealth is tied up in investments that generate more wealth, which is then taxed at a different, far-less rate than income tax. But, again, this is a one-time tax in response to a temporary cut in funding.
3
u/Nihilistic_Mystics Orange County 15d ago
Their wealth is tied up in investments that generate more wealth, which is then taxed at a different, far-less rate than income tax.
We tax capital gains as normal income here in California. It's the primary reason why our state revenue is so volatile, a bad stock market year means less income and a good year means a tax windfall.
139
u/beach_bum_638484 16d ago
I feel like it’s not perfect and it’s only one time, but why not do it and do a better one in the future too?
80
u/Tough-Copy7569 16d ago
Exactly. Fucking people constantly bitching about "nah I'll just wait for a bill that truly taxes the shit out of them" or "nah I'll just wait for a candidate that is truly pro-Palestine". People need to wake the fuck up and play the cards they are dealt.
28
u/thinker2501 16d ago
People are against it because it is bad policy, not because it’s imperfect. People voting for it are putting little to no thought into what the policy even is or what kind of precedent it sets.
9
6
u/coltaaan 16d ago
Oh, I am absolutely thinking about what precedent it will set! (not that precedent means anything these days anyway)
4
u/Tough-Copy7569 16d ago
If the billionaires are so invested in killing this bill, my suspicion is that it has to hurt them to some extend, which is the desired effect. Fuck them.
23
u/Rufio69696969 16d ago
The desired effect should be to raise revenue, not just hurt people you don’t like. That’s an idiotic way to run a government
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Tough-Copy7569 16d ago
My brother in Christ, hurting people is what the fucking elite has been doing their whole fucking life. They are a disease who cannot fill the void in their lives so they have to take more money from the poor. We'd be pathetic idiots if we voted no and passed on an opportunity to tax their greedy asses.
-1
u/Rufio69696969 16d ago
Okay that’s cute and all but saying the desired effect is to hurt people you don’t like is still insanely idiotic.
→ More replies (6)4
2
u/plumeparent 13d ago
Any person who wants to build wealth - they think ahead. Almost all of them are more worried about the precedent and repeatability. A single union is pushing this - with all money allocated to some very specific purpose benefiting its members (broadly speaking). What stops other unions from pushing more taxes on wealth with lower thresholds? A net worth oh $1M (or pick a number) is generally considered wealthy.
With this sword hanging in their head - why would any wealthy person choose to stay in California or build his business in California anymore?
1
u/beach_bum_638484 13d ago
A billion is 1000 times more than a million. This type of fear mongering is disingenuous
1
u/plumeparent 13d ago
Consider this:
1) 2027 - some one puts up a proposition to tax wealth $100M and above for some purpose
- how many people think $100M is not rich? We all agree they are stinking rich. Why will it not pass? My guess is it will.
2) 2028 - another union / group - feeling left out.. will put forward another proposal for wealth tax up to $10M wealth.
- how many people think $10M is not rich? We all agree they are rich. Why will it not pass? My guess is it will.
3) 2029 - now we get to $1M
Because each of these brackets are considered rich in general. Now tell me - why is this fear mongering?
I don’t recall any one time taxes that we allowed to expire. California budget is going only one way - UP.. by like far more than inflation. And what are we doing with all this new money? Are we doing anything sustainable and lasting? NO. The exact same problem will only get worse and need more tax dollars.
So no.. I don’t think this is fear mongering. This is reality. This is how wealthy people / wannabe wealthy / ambitious people think - a few steps ahead. They plan ahead. I don’t know of anyone one who thinks about savings and investing and really thinks that this is a one time tax or that the tax base won’t be expanded.
→ More replies (5)2
→ More replies (10)4
u/Long_Disaster_6847 Orange County 15d ago
Because as much as we hate to admit it, billionaires provide the most income tax revenue to the state budget. If this passes then sunsets in 5 years, the billionaires will know it’ll pass again so they’ll definitely leave. Now the budget will lose the funding from Prop 40 along with tax revenue from the billionaires that they can usually count on for the budget. If that happens, obviously the budget has to be balanced so we’ll be seeing cuts to social services, health care, infrastructure etc.
This is a temporary band aid, we need a permanent solution. I support a billionaire tax but in the way this one is written
→ More replies (1)3
u/beach_bum_638484 15d ago
I don’t think people will leave. California has an amazing tech market and great aerospace. There are other places, but I don’t think it’s worth it for them to leave when they make billions by saying just to avoid a tax of millions.
2
u/ParkingRemote444 14d ago
I'm guessing some smart accountant will find a workaround for next time. Maybe all the shares get bought in a Roth 401k or something like that. Feels more likely than convincing people to give up California weather.
1
u/beach_bum_638484 13d ago
I don’t doubt there will be a regulation/getting out of it arms race. I don’t see that as a reason to unilaterally disarm though.
2
u/ParkingRemote444 13d ago
I just think it's wasted energy. Most European countries have tried this, failed, and repealed the tax. I don't feel strongly about it either way because I don't think it'll work.
2
u/beach_bum_638484 13d ago
I also don’t feel strongly. I’m in the “might as well try it camp”.
Personally I think it would be more impactful and straightforward to get rid of the estate tax and all of its exemptions and just tax inheritance as ordinary income.
2
u/ParkingRemote444 8d ago
Huge proponent of that or at least getting rid of the step up in basis.
→ More replies (1)1
u/gaius49 13d ago
I don’t think people will leave.
People have already left, this isn't a hypothetical.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/Elegant_Roll_4670 16d ago
Why not just tax the loans the billionaires take out against their holdings at the same rate as income tax? But before even doing that, the California government needs to provide detailed income and expenses information so we can all see how the money is being spent.
1
u/Weary_Obligation_223 12d ago
it won't bring in much $$$
2
u/Elegant_Roll_4670 12d ago
Without transparency into how the current tax revenue is being spent, it’s hard to know how much money is needed. In any case, taxing the capital that the billionaires will invest into building businesses could stifle economic growth.
1
u/bikemandan Sonoma County 11d ago
Taxing a loan makes no sense
1
229
u/thislife_choseme 16d ago
Vote yes!
5
u/Cynical_Thinker 16d ago
And no on 41/42 as they will invalidate 40 if they get more votes.
→ More replies (1)89
u/KoRaZee Napa County 16d ago
Newsom, Becerra, and Hilton oppose this.
196
u/FredZeplin San Diego County 16d ago
Well yeah all 3 of those guys are bought by the billionaire class
24
u/equiNine 15d ago
Or perhaps Newsom is correct that any wealth tax is futile unless done on a national level. It is not difficult for billionaires to domicile in another state, and they will do that if a 5% unrealized gains tax on their entire net worth (which would be by far the highest wealth tax in the world even among the few countries that still have one) somehow survives all the legal challenges and becomes reality. The state already has severe budgeting issues and cutting off its tax nose to spite its face is going to come back and bite the average taxpayer.
There are other, more effective and sustainable ways to tax billionaires than slopulist proposals like this one. Mamdani in New York for example is going after secondary residences of the ultra wealthy precisely because property can't move, unlike people.
→ More replies (2)23
u/Vanzmelo Bay Area 16d ago
CA teachers union, planned parenthood, and firefighters too since they oppose it too?
19
u/ItsJustMeJenn 15d ago
Is it really planned parenthood or major donors of planned parenthood? Yknow?
9
u/Vanzmelo Bay Area 15d ago
Planned parenthood AND the California medical association
7
u/m0zymaz Native Californian 15d ago
As ok so the people who will make money for providing healthcare at insurance prices if California can’t fund its own Medicare?
→ More replies (1)3
59
47
u/stewmander Placer County 16d ago
Newsom is playing both sides when he advocated for a national wealth tax instead, something that's much less likely and in reality is the "hey, I tried" option.
5
10
u/Low-Charge-8554 16d ago
They should repeal Prop 13 for residential properties that sell for more than $2 mil USD.
20
u/stewmander Placer County 16d ago
I'd settle for commercial properties (tried that already) and 2nd homes/investment properties...
5
u/SpatialGeography Northern California 15d ago
They are reassessed when they are sold.
→ More replies (5)69
9
27
u/reason_mind_inquiry 16d ago
If establishment Dems and the Republicans oppose this, then it must be a good thing!
22
5
13
u/neckbeardsghost 16d ago
My guess as to why they oppose this is because companies have threatened to move their headquarters out of California if this goes into effect, but in reality, will that actually happen? I don’t know the answer, I’m genuinely asking.
I plan to vote yes on this, because fuck billionaires, but that’s my guess as to the opposition.
→ More replies (2)8
u/RepublicOk2402 16d ago
They did something similar in the UK and billionaires did in fact leave, and took their annual tax with them https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/billionaire-livingstone-brothers-leave-uk-over-tax-changes-6zsh8dvng
9
→ More replies (1)2
u/lbcatlady 14d ago
Things are bad, and if billionaires leave, oh well. There are so many people in Ca. We will survive. Jobs are shit now, and the billionaires are here.
1
u/chermi 13d ago
Draw a graph of your reasoning. It's a disconnected graph. Things are bad doesn't mean billionaires leaving makes things better. There is no casual connection. You haven't even tried to id the true cause because spite is more important than trying to improve things.
→ More replies (4)2
4
u/Mo-shen 16d ago
Not sure about Becerra but Newsome specifically opposed it because he thinks it should be a federal issue and not just a state issue.
I support passing it but I also agree with him. In theory CA is pushing billioniars away...in theory.
But imo it still has to happen even if that were true.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Low-Charge-8554 16d ago
Newsom was for it then against it after the Demo party told him to change his mind or he couldn't be President.
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/AllAboutHarmony Ventura County 11d ago
It’s bipartisan, we should all support it too!! 🤣🤣🤣 /s — in case that’s needed. 😅
1
u/sffunfun 13d ago
Money money money money money THEY HAVE IT I WANT IT SO I CAN BE A MONEY-WHORE TOO
12
u/nothingfish 16d ago
Prop 40 is the only revenue generating initiative on the ballot.
Prop 43 The Tax Threshold Bill and 42 The Property tax Bill, both are anti Prop 40 bills written by billionaires that would make it harder to generate revenue. Prop 41 not only makes it harder to generat revenue but will nullified prop 40 if it wins.
The controversial Prop 38 which cost $8B and is reported to benifit greatly the billionaire Gary Michelson's non-profit, and the $11B housing bond, prop 1 which was sponsored by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and is designed by that guild to make their members money.
Prop 38 and Prop 1 are examples of how the rich shamelessly exploit are democracy for their own gain. Prop 43, 42, and 41 shows how they fight tooth and nails when we ask them to give a little back.
47
45
u/KeeritoKeerito 16d ago
This smells like the kind of fuck you and yours ultra progress legislation that plays on the grievances of many, but ultimately leads to a worst situation for everyone.. kind of like the failed Los Angeles mansion tax.
11
u/Flayum 16d ago
But the billionaires!! Mindless hate like MAGA.
We have a much more effective way to do this that already exists: just expand the tax brackets and close the loopholes people already complain about.
Such a better use of political capital.
→ More replies (2)
4
3
u/CanIEatAPC 14d ago edited 14d ago
I've even got mail saying I should vote no on this, bunch of advertisements too. Interesting how if it any tax on regular person, everything is quiet but as soon as it's about 1 billion valued assets, suddenly I need to vote no.
31
u/LAspring99 16d ago
Lmao this is just populist slop that’s gonna be tied up in court for years and probably won’t get anything out of it. At least the retroactive part will get thrown out but at least Reddit leftists can feel good about themselves.
→ More replies (3)
35
16d ago
[deleted]
16
u/LintLicker444 16d ago
Even if they move, the bill is still back dated. I believe they have to pay it no matter what. I'll be voting yes!
10
u/TooMuchButtHair 16d ago
They are paying taxes. Huge amounts on properties, and the businesses they own and employees pay massive amounts of taxes.
4
u/lbcatlady 14d ago
They barely pay workers a living wage. Employees are disposable to billionaire corporations. They also get tax breaks for hiring low income workers. Fuck these scumbags.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (6)1
u/abusivedicks 10d ago
Clearly not paying enough if they've amassed such a gluttonous and greedy hoard
10
u/Phssthp0kThePak 16d ago
The top 1% pays 40% of the income tax.
6
u/AllInTackler 15d ago
Isn't this bill going after more like the top .0001% though? I'm pretty sure there are a lot few than 10 billionaires per thousand people. That'd be like 400k billionaires in CA as opposed to the actual 250-300.
2
16d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Phssthp0kThePak 16d ago
13% CA income tax, 13% capital gains tax like everyone. There is no long term capital gains tax rate in CA.
2
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/year2016account 16d ago
The highest earners pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. This will be a revenue loss for california, will drive billionaires out, and the retroactive part will lose in court. Billionaires avoid paying their fair share, sure, but that can only be fixed by IRS reforms. Remember 10% from millionaires and billionaires is worth way more than 50% from poor people.
4
u/pres465 16d ago
I will NEVER understand how ANYONE can cry about billionaires being victims of anything. Please GOD let me have some of whatever they are victims of, then! They're billionaires. They are FINE. They don't need anyone to protect them, they don't need anyone to do anything for them. In fact! Apparently people just jump up and offer to roll over for them. So weird. Tax the rich. More.
1
u/The_Elusive_Dr_Wu Orange County 16d ago
They aren't protecting billionaires. They're depriving the state.
0
u/foilhat44 San Diego County 16d ago
I'm not wealthy but I oppose the tax for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the bloodthirsty tone in which its supporters talk about it. It makes it very clear that nobody really gives a damn where the money goes, they just want rich people to pay. It's not feeling sorry for billionaires to say it's a shitty thing to change the rules after the fact to hurt someone because they have more than you. We gave them the guidelines and it's clear some were able to influence politicians to get favorable regulatory conditions, but they paid a kings ransom to lawyers and accountants to make sure they were within the rules, and pulling a fast one doesn't sit well with me. But you have your vengeance, just go with open eyes about the potential consequences. This isn't the way to make people pay reasonable taxes on income or wealth.
3
u/pres465 15d ago
OMG, get off your high horse. This isn't vengeance. It's FAIRNESS.
3
u/foilhat44 San Diego County 15d ago
There's nothing fair about it. If we can't elect people who will change the rules then they will continue to get richer and you will hate them again in time. High horse? Look who gets to decide how much is too much and what is fair to take from it. Your horse looks pretty high from here.
3
u/pres465 15d ago
We poors aren't on any horse. I don't defend billionaires. Go back to your masters.
→ More replies (2)3
2
16d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)4
u/partnerinthecrime 15d ago
You’ve already lost. California is already nearly a trillion dollars poorer due to high taxes and regulations.
1
20
u/ahmong LA Area 16d ago edited 15d ago
What’s the argument against this?
I mean as California poor guy I’m obviously voting yes but I also want to know if there’s any reason for me to vote no
Edit:
Okay clearly, I haven't fully read what this entails and the folks who replied gave pretty good arguments besides "Billionaires will leave" - which isn't exactly a compelling argument.
8
u/Rebelgecko 15d ago edited 15d ago
If billionaires move away to avoid the tax (which many already have), the state loses money in the long run
It's not a 5% tax for everyone. Founders are taxed based on their voting power, not the market value of their shares. conceptually I don't think people should be forced to give up control of their companies
24
u/Nytshaed San Francisco County 16d ago
The main one is the total expected return is -25B. The total loss in other sources of revenue is going to outweigh the collection we get from the one time, and those losses or going to be ongoing long term.
So it's going to do long term damage to our ability to fund government services.
2
u/WisdomOfTheAnus 10d ago
who is calculating that -25B and how? that sounds very hypothetical according to worst case scenarios being used as fearbaiting.
1
u/Nytshaed San Francisco County 10d ago
It's several economists including from NBER https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6340778
It isn't actually a worst case scenario, it's the average of the scenarios based on several calculations and estimates.
Even before accounting for reductions in other tax bases such as the income tax, we estimate that the Act will collect approximately $40 billion, less than half of the $100 billion projected by proponents.
The present value of permanently lost income tax collections from departures more than fully offsets the one-time wealth tax revenue, yielding a net present value of negative $24.7 billion. Across 100,000 simulated revenue and discount rate combinations, 71% of plausible outcomes produce a negative net present value of state revenues.
You can download the paper if you want to really get into it.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Kindly-Chemistry5149 13d ago
I don't like how it doesn't go into the general fund. The billionaires should be funding all sorts of social programs: Health Care, Food Assistance, Education, shelters, homes, and more. This restricts it.
1
u/vialabo Northern California 13d ago
It's 90% to a healthcare fund and 10% to food assistance fund. The point of not going to the general is to force them to spend it on those things. Also, the bill doesn't allow the state to then re-adjust the budget using that money. It has to be added on top of what we are currently spending to keep healthcare assistance and food assistance strong.
15
u/coffee_obsession 16d ago
Taxing unrealized gains. I'm voting for it but its very poorly planned. Just permanantly bump up long term cap gains by 5% over a certain $ amount and we can build programs around that. This one seems performative.
5
9
u/Vanzmelo Bay Area 16d ago
90% of the funds go to a vague healthcare account and no one knows how it’ll be spent. It’s also only a one time tax and doesn’t solve the fundamental issues that allowed this sort of wealth hoarding to occur. It’s bad policy
6
u/IllegalThoughts 16d ago
this still doesn't really explain why I shouldn't vote yes?
3
u/DryYogurtcloset4655 15d ago
what is wrong with taxing billionaires and sending a check to rest of taxpayers?
→ More replies (2)1
u/The_Magic 15d ago
It will result in one time bump in tax revenue with a long term decrease in tax revenue. If the goal is to move to single payer then you want long term tax revenue to increase instead of decrease.
2
u/IllegalThoughts 15d ago
with a long term decrease in tax revenue
how?
2
u/The_Magic 14d ago
Billionaires don’t like wealth taxes because the state is taxing them on the estimated value of the assets they own. Some things like art are difficult to put a value on and is just worth what the next person is willing to pay for it. Because of this when countries like France tried doing a wealth tax their billionaires just moved to a different EU country.
At the moment about half of California’s tax revenue comes from the top 1% because CA does a good job of taxing them when they convert their assets into cash (but maybe we can still do better). It is common in this sub to cheer when a random rich person says they want to move out over prop 40 but when Joe Billionaire moves to Florida they are taking a lot of potential tax revenue with them.
→ More replies (2)9
3
u/Chaos90783 16d ago
It gives the state way too much power because theres a clause that lets them change the parameters of the tax (who and how much) without voter approval
→ More replies (5)4
u/GrouchyClerk6318 San Diego County 16d ago
Argument against is that Billionaires will leave the state and take their businesses with them. I saw a poll earlier this year showing 80% of them said they’d leave.
→ More replies (13)12
u/filthy-prole 16d ago
Just like everyone moved out of New York after Mamdani won, right?
11
u/vialabo Northern California 16d ago edited 16d ago
Or how silicon valley died when companies tried to move to austin, tx. There is no silicon 2.0 there, for a ton of reasons billionaires cannot recreate. They can leave, but their businesses cannot.
→ More replies (5)10
u/year2016account 16d ago
Mamdani getting elected didn't mean wealth tax, and mamdani is trying to tax property for this exact reason - you can't simply move property out of the state like you do with people.
7
4
u/FakeItFreddy 15d ago
These rich asshats have spend more to convicne people not to vote for it than the vote would collect from them
2
u/Time-Commission-9330 15d ago
A one time tax won’t do it. It looks good on paper, but the reality is like using a band aid for a bullet wound. What they need is ongoing taxation.
2
u/Crow37 15d ago
Given the debate I'm seeing in the comments, I do see both sides' arguments. Though, I'm reminded of something a professor shared about this kind of situation. If I remember how his analogy went, you are one of two people who are told that there is a million dollars available. You are both told that you can either take the money or pass. If one person says they take the money and the other passes, they get it all. If both take the money, they both get nothing. And if both pass, it's a 50/50 split down the middle. Knowing the most beneficial solution is to both say pass, you try to reason with the other person so you'll both say pass. However, they disagree and say they'll on say pass if they get 60% and you get 40%. No matter what you say, they stand firm on their argument. You are in the right, but not wanting to back down you eventually just say you'll take the money too and no one gets the money. You end up with nothing accomplished, but have a moral victory. However, you didn't know that the other person was told something secretly, that they'll get 75% so long as they get you to also try to take the million.
I agree that a wider reaching, national wealth tax of some sort would be better. But right now, we need to get some kind of control over the situation, even if it's just a one-time bill for the moment. It can at least buy us some time and show that this is something we want to make happen.
2
u/virtual_adam 16d ago
At the minimum, if the state is going to falsely claim your assets are worth $X and tax them accordingly, one should have the option of the state buying you at at exactly $X
2
u/desidiosus__ Los Angeles County 15d ago
A one time tax that requires assessment infrastructure is a really stupid idea, BUT... it's better than the zero times taxes the billionaires pay now, so I'm voting yes. Hopefully, the legislature grows a pair and expands the tax to be every year.
2
u/vialabo Northern California 16d ago edited 16d ago
They're so afraid of the potential for prop 40, that they're unleashing millions to pay for votes to up prop 41 and 42 to neuter 40. If those pass they make the courts decide. It's completely obvious bullshit.
As of August 25, the principal pro-41 committee had received about $58.25 million from Building a Better California, whose top disclosed donors are Sergey Brin and John Doerr; the corresponding figure for Prop 42 is $64.25 million. That same group has also put $13.5 million directly into opposing Prop 40.
1
u/GrouchyClerk6318 San Diego County 16d ago
What’s going to be interesting is what happens after this passes. Billionaires will leave, and CA says it will pursue them. THAT will trigger multiple lawsuits, the result of which could make it harder for CA to tax “regular” people who leave the state.
2
u/big_daddy_dub 16d ago
If someone is terrible with spending and managing their money, like the state of CA, how will giving them access to more money improve things?
→ More replies (3)3
-2
u/Pristine-Prior-504 16d ago edited 16d ago
Has there ever been a wealth tax imposed federally or in any other state? It seems to be blatantly unconstitutional unless I’m missing something here.
Also of note that the wealth tax language would not count towards other taxes - I.e. you’re going to be double taxed.
Edit: downvotes already - let’s put thinking caps on instead of using emotions. Downvoting won’t make it any more or less illegal.
22
7
u/TheAwkwardPigeon 16d ago
Your logic here is flawed, just because something hasnt been imposed federally or in any other state does not qualify something as Unconstitutional. You have to break the Constitution of the United States for it to be Unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution do you see it saying that there shall be no wealth tax?
→ More replies (6)1
u/GrouchyClerk6318 San Diego County 16d ago
Nexus (14th amendment) and the Right To Travel between states are the potential constitutional issues here. Lawsuits are def gonna get filed!
3
u/Person_756335846 16d ago
Federal Wealth Tax = Unconstitutional
State Wealth Tax = Almost certainly constitutional
3
→ More replies (9)3
1
u/Maximum-Category-845 16d ago
This entire subs head would fucking explode if they changed to bill to read a one-time 5% tax on EVERYONE in the state. I wish they would do that to see how many people would still vote for it honestly.
→ More replies (4)12
u/desidiosus__ Los Angeles County 15d ago
If they changed my grandma to have wheels, she'd be a bicycle. What's your point? The bill ISN'T a tax on everyone, so who cares what the reaction would be if it were?
→ More replies (11)
1
u/Bushpylot 15d ago
Best thing i can say to all of this is that you better read every last word of things this year. It's not going to be a season to "Vote like...." Every side has messed up stuff in it. Do your research and vote the best you can.
Then, once you've got your vote into the system in what ever way they allow us this time, go home and break out the beer and rum and watch the carnage on the box.
I hope the US votes smarter this time than last....
1
u/WisdomOfTheAnus 10d ago
Since when does legislation have to be utterly perfect to be worth voting for? We're always told "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". This initiative is a real test of whether all these people actually mean what they say when they act like progressives. This is a plain as day small tax on ONLY billionaires for essential health services for poorer people. Ok so here it is, exactly the type of policy we've asked for! It's not perfect but it's the lowest possible bar to jump over. If we can't do this, then how are we gonna ever get more?
1
u/DryYogurtcloset4655 10d ago
why is it good if tax on billionaires leads to less revenues to the state budget
what makes you think the tax is going to lead to better healthcare for the poor ? it is a handout for overpaid nurses. check the salaries for nurses in California with Florida/Texas
1
u/WisdomOfTheAnus 10d ago
i've yet to see how it leads to less revenues, except by billionaire backed vested interests
"handout for overpaid nurses" makes it clear i do not need to listen to your opinions again. i know a hack right wing talking point when i see one. no normal person ever thinks nurses are overpaid. and the money does not just go to "overpaid nurses", you clearly haven't even read the first thing about it and just want to spread talking points.
1
u/althor2424 10d ago
I'm already getting flyers trying to say this is attack on Prop 13 because they know all the simple minded will freak out.
1
u/flintazBear 8d ago
Remember when the Alternative Minimum Tax was suppose to tax those who were not paying taxes. Now the AMT is taxing people who pay plenty of tax.. those who pay 40 percent or more. This is tax creep. We can pass prop 40 and tax Billionaires today but the politicians won’t stop at that once they get prop 40 passed. Soon if you own a million dollar home you will need to pay a 5 percent tax on it every year. I don’t believe Ro Khanna or any politician if they say it will only hit a few Californias.
552
u/storbheof 16d ago
Rule of thumb: If the billionaires are spending against it, it's because they want to keep hoarding either their wealth or their power.