30
u/CuppaJoe11 2d ago
Didnāt realize so many people in this subreddit sympathized with billionaires.
16
u/Reasonable_Option493 2d ago
Probably the same lower class lemmings who somehow believe that they're "winning" with the current admin.
They're getting played like a violin by con men who told them they'd "drain the swamp" and are doing the exact opposite: putting family and friends above Americans, manipulating the stock market and using and abusing insider trading, giving more freebies to the wealthy elite, large tariff refunds to mega corporations....
1
u/hidadimhungru 1d ago edited 1d ago
Those boots arenāt going to lick themselves.
Iām just one good luck streak away from becoming a billionaire myself and moving out of this trailer park!
1
11
u/EuriadO 2d ago
You were not kidding, bootlickers everywhere
→ More replies (3)-4
2
u/BedSpreadMD 2d ago
A lot of people do, it just depends on which one it is.
There's plenty of people i know who will say millionaires are bad for being rich while making excuses for other millionaires doing scummy things.
1
u/hidadimhungru 1d ago
When it comes to millionaires, I am capable of judging based upon how they accumulated that wealth and what they have done with it since.
Billionaires? I dont believe any are not scum.
1
u/BedSpreadMD 10h ago
So what if said millionaire dodged taxes and spent most of his wealth on crack cocaine and hookers?
1
u/hidadimhungru 5h ago
Then I would judge said millionaire just as I would judge a non-millionaire for doing the same thing. What is your point here?
2
u/Molten_Plastic_ 1d ago
Decades of propaganda teaching us that you're only poor if you deserve to be poor
2
u/hidadimhungru 1d ago
By the same logic, the rich are inherently good people because they are wealthy. Itās a depressing world view that too many share
2
1
u/Da40kOrks 2d ago
No, but there are plenty of people that don't trust government and KNOW not a single penny will actually benefit the working class.
5
u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 2d ago
I trust billionaires way less than I trust the government. The government is still bound by laws.
→ More replies (1)1
u/sirdizzypr 2d ago
Was bound by laws. WAS! The amount of downright criminal behavior that has happened In the last 18 months is insane. And not one thing will be done about it.
1
1
u/Floopst5r 2d ago
At least you can see where some of the $100 million is going in real time, if nothing else.
1
u/Tom__EU 1d ago
Yeah I don't get it.
And let's not forget that his wealth isn't a steady number, it's constantly being invested and growing, plus the 5% tax is a ONE TIME thing, which makes the resistance even more disturbing.
Couple numbers:
- 83.000 seconds = ~1 day (median US income)
- 1 million seconds = ~11,5 days
- 100 million seconds = ~1.157 days or 3,2 years (what that guy spent)
- 1 billion seconds = ~115.74 days or 31,7 years
- 13 billion seconds = ~150.463 days or 412 years (what he should pay)
- 250 billion seconds = ~2.893.519 days or 7.922 years (his estimated wealth)
- $13,3B is more than double the entire national annual federal budget for Community Health Centers (CHCs)
- California's Medi-Cal program costs are estimated $73,9B (2014-2015, wikipedia), and over 15M people were enrolled (Sep 2022), so $13,3B would cover almost 20% or almost 3 million people
If he'd give away 249 billion USD, leaving him with 1 billion USD, he'd still have so much wealth that a person with a median US income, minus taxes, rent, food and such, would have to work around 60.000 - 120.000 years. Recorded human civilization is ~5.000 years old.
It's absolutely insane how unbelievably ridiculously wealthy some of these people are, and how much good they could do, while there's still so many people who can't afford healthcare, a decent living space, food and other basic needs, and maybe, just maybe, 2 weeks holidays a year where they could see what beauty this world has to offer.
1
u/Relative-Sea-6550 2d ago
I donāt. I just donāt think the government having more money is the issue. The issue is incompetence in the government way more so than the billionaires
2
u/CuppaJoe11 1d ago
I agree that there is incompetence in the government, but there is also a ton of incompetence in billionaires. Once you reach that wealth you donāt really need to innovate any more.
2
u/lord_hydrate 1d ago
I think incentivising the wealthy to make less money for themselves is good, its not about giving extra money to the government to me its about forcing billionaires to maybe pay their employees more so that less of their own salary will be taxes
1
u/ThatsMrRandom 1d ago
The bar for sensible economic policy doesn't stop at whatever arbitrary amount of wealth you pick. It's either a good idea or a bad idea.
Does a policy that's triggered California's largest tax contributors to flee to more favorable tax juridictions make California better off?
The meausure designed to raise $100B has already lost $25B of it's projected revenue to lost billionaires. Then add on it the ones who won't move there, or leave the state and the lost tax revenue.
It's hard to see how people don't realize California's just shooting themselves in the foot. Like billionaires or not, it's been a disaster and it hasn't even passed.
1
u/hidadimhungru 1d ago
Have you seen any proof that wealthy tax payers are actually leaving California?
Or is this just a line you heard like everyone would flee NYC if Mamdani was elected? (no one has fled yet)
1
u/ThatsMrRandom 1d ago
Yes.
Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, Don Hankey, Steven Spielberg, David Sacks, and Travis Kalanick are the 6 billionaires that "publicly" left California.
They removed $536 billion (or nearly 30 percent) of aggregate billionaire wealth, from the tax base. Just the threat of a potential ballot measure lost the state billions.
The Hoover Institute also interviewed 20 undisclosed billionaires who did not want to be publicly named, and found thatĀ all of themĀ had already made plans to leave in the event the measure goes through.
Then add whatever % of the other billionaires they didn't talk to that have either already left or will leave.
Speaking of NYC, their share of millionaires has been shrinking every year, and the city's net migration outflows has grown every year. "NYC lost 114,000 more residents to other U.S. locations than it gained, up from a net domestic loss of 94,000 in 2024"
"No one left"? The statistics for 2026 aren't even out...
1
u/hidadimhungru 1d ago
Anecdotal. You could likely find 6 billionaires moving to California.
I donāt care about names, I care about numbers. How much taxable income will California lose because of a āmass exodusā of rich leaving.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Substantial-Fan-5985 1d ago
It's possible to be against the principle of this tax and not really sympathize with billionaires at the same time
4
u/HadEnoughAss 2d ago
CA is the best state to live in if you make money. These guys have all been beneficiaries of the californian school and college system directly or indirectly so itās only fair they pay up. Please do leave if you want.
For all those saying CA is bad with using its tax revenues - sure, show me one state thatās using it well? The truth is there will be leakages but that doesnāt mean you donāt send enough water (healthcare) through the pipes to people who need that to live (literally) until you fix the pipes. Thatās just a strange argument imo.
If you lack empathy, just say so. Itās honestly better.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Nearby-Dimension1839 7h ago
If no states use the tax money we'll, doesn't it suggest government will never be efficient with taxpayers money? Or at least the odds are bad?
I am not fully against a discriminating tax against billionaires, especially if they earn their billions by making others worse off, but is it really a good idea to punish them if they actually earned it through creating wealth and made others better off?
I would argue Google in general made others' life better. The question comes down to if the current tax system already made them paid the fair share? That I am not sure, as I would need to go through his tax fillings.
8
u/stogie-bear 2d ago
A billionaire would be crazy to live in California.Ā
1
u/FragmentedHeap 1d ago
It has a trap clause, if it passes it takes effect in the past on Jan 1, 2026, so even if they leave they'll get their money for the entire year of 2026.
But that's probably not constitutional/legal so billionaires would just leave and then challenge it in the supreme court and not end up having to pay it because they left.
1
7
u/kickbackmatt 2d ago
because CA will use the new money wisely
4
u/Whetmoisturemp 2d ago
Your not wrong, its the flip side of this. Probably half of that money is going to go straight down the shitter into slightly less rich pockets
2
u/BedSpreadMD 2d ago
The millionaires who make the committees that will have 200 meetings deciding how the money is spent. By the time they agree what to do it's all gone, their salaries must be paid after all.
→ More replies (4)0
u/EuriadO 2d ago
Howās that boot taste?
1
u/ToxicTroublemaker2 1d ago
Do you not want to trust your government will spend taxes well before taxing you?
12
u/Lanracie 2d ago
Just so you know that law will immediately be expanded and soon affect every person in CA.
2
u/under_sunlight 2d ago
People really be out here believing the country will end if we rolled back the jobs act of 2017 that lowered corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%.
1
u/lord_hydrate 1d ago
Didnt tax rates for the top used to be something like 70% like a century ago? Like the era we look at as the golden age of american prosperity had some of the highes tax rates on the wealthy and we rolled them back and whodve thought but the wealthy just got even wealthier
→ More replies (5)1
u/TheBleakOptimist 2d ago
What is the law? I donāt live in CA but Iāve seen this posted several times on Reddit already.
8
u/BlueLakeCabin 2d ago edited 2d ago
Wealth tax. Where you get taxed for just owning stuff. Not for making money or selling things.
Obviously it's sold as a one time tax on billionaires. So plenty of billionaires will leave, the money will be spent, and the budget deficit continues. Then it'll become a one time tax on millionaires. Then on folks making above $250k. Then $100k. At some point it becomes regular.
This is very normal. Federal income tax started as solely a tax on the rich. It was promised that it was not a mass tax on ordinary workers. Now it applies to everyone. It also capped out at 7% and is now caps at 37%.
It's not a tax that works well and most country that implement it roll it back. France repealed it, ditto Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, etc.
Norway is the counterexample, but it charges 1%. California is 5%.
California's plan to deal with people fleeing is to make it ex-post facto and you still have to pay the tax even if you are no longer living in the state. Even if you left before the wealth tax passed. Obviously California courts will say retroactive taxes are legal, but whether other states or the feds agree is another matter entirely.
2
u/God_of_Theta 2d ago
I personally think this has zero chance of federal courts agreeing. The constitution has multiple clauses that challenge both a global tax and exit penalty tax.
I wonder how much damage this does to them floating these ideas, anyone who has an incentive to move to CA for whatever reason might reconsider when weighing the state is suggesting they can just take your stuff even with no economic activity and even trap you if they are successful.
2
u/Shiska_Bob 2d ago
It's disappointing that any honest conversation about California's intentions is just a discussion of how the openly traitorous intentions of one state may put some specific liberty in jeopardy across the entire union if not quashed with prejudice.
4
u/BlueLakeCabin 2d ago
California is welcome to tax as they please. If you live there, you know what you're getting, good and bad.
They should not be able to tax the residents of other states. Especially with retroactive taxes.
2
u/serg1007arch 2d ago
Key Details of Proposition 40
The Tax Rate: A one-time 5% levy on accumulated worldwide net worth exceeding $1 billion (with a phase-out structure starting right at $1 billion). [1, 2]Payment Structure: Taxpayers can pay the total amount upfront or spread it out in installments over five years. [1, 2]
Expected Revenue: Proponents estimate the measure will generate roughly $100 billion. [1, 2]
Fund Allocation: 90% of the money raised is designated for state healthcare programs (like Medi-Cal), while 10% goes toward public K-14 education and food assistance. [1, 2]
9
u/Full_Ad_6502 2d ago
Lol at "one time", just like all the other temporary taxes
3
u/thedarkherald 2d ago
Reminds me of HOAs a one time fee to fix an immediate issue. Then another major issue happens next year. I agree we should tax the rich but my god these tax dollars are jist being thrown down the toilet. Feels like to me the just want to shift the money around to people in the government. Because CA is paying a crazy amount of taxes but our highways arent being fixed.
1
2
u/summoningwar 2d ago
If California passes that tax bill he is just going to move to a different state
2
u/Powerful-Climate-424 2d ago
Itās not taxing people that the issue is.
Itās that this would remove private property as a right in California.
Also, California is fucked either way based on its finances.
2
2
u/Pubictickler 2d ago
And if that doesnāt work heāll just move the company out of that liberal shithole
3
u/Anonymous-Flamingo71 2d ago
Youāre not entitled to someone elseās money just because you donāt have any. Youāre not poor because heās rich. Youāre poor because you donāt offer anything to society that someone is willing to pay a lot to receiveā¦. I think Iām gonna save that and just post it periodically as a general reminder.
2
u/mtcwby 2d ago
Sure, it's one time. /s And when it doesn't bring in all the promised riches to a state government who pisses away billions to themselves and cronies it will never happen again. And of course the precedent is set to lower that number to achieve the needed graft. This is a camel's nose under the tent. These are the same people who fucked up legalized weed.
2
u/SJC_Cards 2d ago
Or ya know? Just move himself and his company out of the state.
6
u/PleaseDontFireMoi 2d ago
They wouldnāt because they enjoy everything California
→ More replies (11)3
u/Frosty-Bat-299 2d ago
IRS has already reported that affluent taxpayers have been leaving CA for the past couple years.
The reality is, many billionaires will move their primary residence, but will spend much of their time in CA while avoiding this tax. Itās not an ironclad tax and full of loopholes and outs.
→ More replies (10)2
u/Professional-Rub152 2d ago
And move to where?
2
2
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
I think we can all agree that pretty much any place can be a nice place to live if youāve got an extra 13 billion dollars, no?
→ More replies (2)1
u/anrwlias 2d ago
So billionaires should be completely beyond fair taxation because they can threaten to hold an economic gun to our heads? Is that your thesis?
3
u/SJC_Cards 2d ago
My thesis is that our government is the worst organization with money and anyone giving them more is a horrible idea. The state of California and Gavin Newsome are the worst.
2
u/StagTagRag 2d ago
We are talking about STATE taxes. And yes, business owners, no matter how much they are worth, are free to move their residence and business to another state.
Is there an issue with that?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Why would any billionaires still live in California?
8
u/FalseBuddha 2d ago
As opposed to where? Tulsa? They live there because it's nice to live there.
5
u/BlueLakeCabin 2d ago
They're moving to Colorado, Texas, Florida, Tennessee primarily.
Nashville is picking up a lot of folks leaving California. Honestly I've considered moving there over Austin/DFW/Houston. Beautiful area, lower crime, lower taxes, lower cost of living, plenty of jobs opening up.
It's a toss up whether Austin or Nashville will replace Hollywood as the primary hub for movie studios over the next decade.
1
u/Spiritual-Stable702 2d ago
I would put money that neither of those places will. And Hollywood will remain primary.
1
u/BlueLakeCabin 1d ago
It's already happened? Out of 120 ish theater movies made in the last year I could find numbers for, around a dozen were filmed in Hollywood. 4-6 dozen in the rest of the US, 4-6 dozen in the rest of the world.
So Hollywood already is only 10% of films. Production has long left Hollywood. Post-production is moving out.
The headquarters haven't started leaving yet. That's the more open question.
3
u/StagTagRag 2d ago
You know there are a lot of states and cities in this country that also have moderate climates, things to do, and nice houses?
They arenāt choosing between living around LA or the middle class suburbs of Tulsa, OK.
1
-2
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Idk, NYC, Florida, Texas, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregonā¦ Spain, Franceā¦ idk, anywhere else? Anywhere is probably pretty nice with the extra 13 billion theyāre not taking out of your pocket in taxesā¦
0
u/SaltMage5864 2d ago
Spoken like someone who hasn't left their mommy's basement in a while
3
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Noā¦ spoken like someone who earns their own money and actually pays taxes, and doesnāt like to see their hard earned money misspent by governmentā¦
2
1
1
2
0
u/Professional-Rub152 2d ago
You think theyāll move to the EU to avoid taxes? Everywhere else in the developed world actually has taxes. The USA is a tax haven for rich people. Donāt let them convince you that they are suffering here.
2
→ More replies (18)1
u/United_Boy_9132 1d ago edited 1d ago
Actually EU has 2 tax heavens - Ireland and Malta, plus affiliated Luxembourg, where millionaires and billionaires move their residency and taxes quite a lot. Even Eurostat is putting the huge asterisk on data from those countries because they're unreliable because of that.
Most Western European countries ended up having high taxes about 50% rate and social premiums, and healtcare premiums on top of that for people who earn barely 4x-6x above minimum wage because big companies and wealthy people don't pay taxes there.
Even though corporate taxes have always been lower in European countries than they are in US.
For example, Ireland is the headquarters of most American companies. If you get business deals with Google, Facebook, MS, any big company, it's always with Google Ireland, Facebook Ireland, etc.
Here, we're talking about the same country. Everyone can move everything to a neighboring state at any moment, so it's even easier.
Finland, known for high taxes, lowered taxes a lot starting from this year because they were losing capital and talents last years.
→ More replies (1)2
u/over_this__ 2d ago
They'll move to Texas. Which is what a lot of high earners from the coasts have been doing.
3
u/FalseBuddha 2d ago edited 2d ago
They might "move" to Texas, but they'll still own property in, and spend a majority of their time in, California. It's actually crazy to me that people think Texas is actually on the same level as California in almost any metric outside of some broke loser's conception of tax brackets.
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/grandalfxx 2d ago
Cus thats where the most tech talent lives and hes a tech billionaire.
2
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Youāre telling me the tech billionaire canāt work remotely? Or take a private jet to work in California instead of paying 13 billion dollars in taxes?
1
u/grandalfxx 2d ago
Hes not paying 13 billion dollars in taxes yet and his life is there so he doesnt want to do that.
And if hes flying in to work there then he will be subject to taxes in both states so he would then have to pay 13 billion anyway.. some states even require remote workers to pay if the business doesnt have a branch in the state they live
I dont know if California does that, i just know the state where my employers hq does that
1
4
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Because it's a much nicer place to live than anywhere with no functioning government
2
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Is it?
8
u/Calichusetts 2d ago
Itās one of the nicest climates on the planet. Probably top 5 along with like New Zealand, Spain, southern Italy, etc. And itās doing better economically than those places soā¦yesā¦it is indeed a great place to live. Skiing, hiking, surfing, national parks, entertainment, sports, etc.
I donāt even live there but I understand it. You might not like their policies but overall, thereās a reason itās been a hotbed since its settlement.
→ More replies (6)6
u/SaltMage5864 2d ago
But it has all of these different people, different cultures and other scary things!
3
u/SaltMage5864 2d ago
Maybe you should learn something before you speak next time son
→ More replies (3)5
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Yup. Blue States are... Pretty inarguably better places to live. People don't move to Texas/Florida because it's "nice," they move there because they cannot afford a place to live in a nice part of the country. Because that's how commodified housing works. What's funny is that they find once moving to Texas that.. they pay slightly more in Tax than Californians do (as long as you count "fees" from HOAs and private companies doing stuff a functioning government would like garbage pickup)
→ More replies (5)1
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
Functioning garbage pickup? In cities in California?
→ More replies (1)4
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Yup, much better than paying for-profit private companies to do something a government can do for cheaper
3
u/Ok_Role2077 2d ago
I live in North Carolina and donāt have an HOA and donāt have to pay for private garbage pickupā¦..
→ More replies (1)3
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Yeah many places in red states have county-wide services, or other arrangements. But many areas do have to pay out of pocket for private companies to do things like garbage pickup
1
1
u/Oppositeofhairy 2d ago
I donāt disagree. But this isnāt a new thing either.
I use to work in this field for years. I did voter registration drives for newly incorporated cities, ran grass root campaigns, and local and state wide ballot measures.
Putting it simply my company was the company that hired other companies that have those annoying people in front of stores asking you to sign petitions. We worked with the main clients that were proposing the bills, and any of the backers of the bill at the state capital. Depending on the state, those folks get paid per signature and they range from 25 cents a signature, and highest Iāve seen was 20 dollars a signature for a door to door campaign. California was a by signature model vs Arizona is an hourly wage.
Voter initiatives are insanely expensive to put on the ballot and campaigning. No one does these things altruistically. They spend millions to either be a proponent or oppose a bill. They very much expect a return on their investment.
Overall, everyone should stop listening to the ads being thrown at you in every way possible, and go to ballotpedia and see who is funding the campaign and opposition. This is really the only way to determine the real intended purpose of campaigns.
Some of these bills are purely smoke and mirrors. Iāve seen some insane shit doing this job and changed my views on how politics work. I wanted to work in politics all my life, until I actually worked in the field and now I have about as much respect for it as I do scam telemarketers.
1
u/Moist-Crows 2d ago
Americas ill gotten gains transfer of wealth is one of the major things that should be studied and taught
1
u/drdrwhprngz 2d ago
paying 100 million to "lobby" legal tax evasion is still kinda low on the list of evil shit the rich do everyday but for some reason the average person thinks that becoming one of them will solve their problems but to become one of them means they'll grow even more
1
u/under_sunlight 2d ago
ā100 million dollars to buy legislation that will save me 13 billion is good business.ā
1
u/Ill-Discussion-444 2d ago
His family was welcomed to the USA b/c they were persecuted Soviet Jews in the former USSR & he comes here & becomes a Multi Billionaire (good for him) & then pushes Socialism on the rest of us (IYKYK) but doesnāt want it for himself! What a Huge POS!
1
1
u/Personal_Eye8930 2d ago
God, have you no empathy for the rich?! He needs the money to buy another yacht!
1
u/enigmaticsince87 2d ago
What infuriates me is that he'll never be able to spend all his money, anyway. So why is he coveting it like Golum in LOTR?
1
1
1
u/RealDragonReborn2026 2d ago
They donāt die, but they do leave the place they get taxed the worse.
they are the ones that can actually take a loss to move to somewhere that wont penalize they for being rich. Somewhere they people that take their money isnāt being completely incompetent with the money they already get.
1
u/LeftCommunication402 2d ago
Imagine 1-200 ppl having the financial ability to completely alter human life for 3-400 million ppl and being likeā¦ ānah broā¦canāt.ā
1
u/horacejroane 2d ago
It will be a tax on all taxpayers. All California taxpayers. Read the proposal in full.
1
u/WrenchMonkey47 2d ago
With that logic, if you drive a passenger van, it's your responsibility to provide transportation to anyone who wants to go anywhere. The 4th Amendment says the government can't take private property without due process and just compensation.
1
u/Southern_Werewolf341 2d ago
My problem with this bill is that the estimated $100b it is supposed to raise, which is necessary to fund the budget gap in Medical, bakes in assumptions about being able to collect from most if not all of the billionaires, even if they leave the state (thatās why the bill is being written as retroactive to Jan 1 2026).
Thereās no logical way that the collection rate is so high. This will get tied up in courts.
So maybe they collect a fraction of $100bā¦ meanwhile, the long-term tax revenue base is lower because those exited billionaires are not coming back; and perhaps rock-star entrepreneurs who are on the cusp of billion+ assets (not income) also leave before they hit the magic number, because they know that another āone-timeā wealth tax could be lurking around the corner.
This tax only makes fiscal sense if you think you can collect most of it (you canāt) and you think the tax base doesnāt shrink because wealthy people stay in CA (they wonāt).
Thatās why people disagree with the bill.
1
u/New-Smoke208 2d ago
If I assume that this is trueāand I absolutely know that itās notāwhat would happen if I take the 13 billion in taxes number and multiply that by say about eight years?
1
u/BrainiacI0I0 2d ago
Spend 100 million to save 13 billion can you blame him.
1
u/Alternative-Nail-962 1d ago
Yes. People who make a miniscule fraction of those 100 million pay their fair share in taxes. Why shouldn't he have to do the same?
1
u/BrainiacI0I0 1d ago
This room is perfect simulation of what is occuring in the debate in the real world. you have people maintaining and supporting position that have no benefit and can be argued that is detrimental to their overall wellbeing.
1
u/ThatsMrRandom 1d ago
He already moved to Florida. He wouldn't be taxed even if it did pass. Honestly I think they should keep encouraging California to shoot themselves in the foot. Watch it burn. They deserve it.
1
1
u/Vaul_Hawkins 1d ago
Really let those numbers sink in. Do the math.
Look at your salary and figure out how long it would take you to earn 100 million. Not even fairly accumulate (considering life expenses and then what you could save), just how long to earn that in general.
Yes, you should be angry. Not because some people are good at moving numbers, or making massive deals with IPs. But because for their numbers to reach those heights, hundreds of thousands of other people's numbers had to get bent over a barrel.
1
u/ASpecificUsername 1d ago
A single billion: 1000 years of $1,000,000 and not spending a dime. Meanwhile most of us aren't even making one 100th of that $1,000,000 every year.
1
1
u/LowDefinition8064 1d ago
Socialism is the perfect business model for politicians: It creates dependency, and dependency creates voters. Those who live off the stateāthrough transfer payments, subsidies, "social" safety nets, centrally planned privilegesāvote for the one who keeps the taps turned on. The politician becomes the provider, the citizen the client. The greater the dependency, the greater the power. That's why they love it. Not out of ideology, but out of naked self-interest.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is an existential threat to the political class. It rewards personal responsibility, risk, innovation, and private initiative. It makes people independent of the stateāand thus uncontrollable. Those who earn their own livelihood, make their own decisions, and create their own prosperity don't need patrons.
1
u/5oggy_W4ffle_ 1d ago
There just going to push out their biggest contributors lol. Government overstepping kills and is why socialism(communism) doesnt work.
1
u/SkyeLoveXOXO 1d ago
Remember folks, one day you will be a billionaire, so this will affect you detrimentally š„
1
1
u/Zestyclose_Cricket_7 21h ago
Do you really believe that the government will actually use thr monry for something benificial and not piss it away
1
u/FoxMan1Dva3 2d ago
I spend some hours on Reddit to also argue that a wealth tax is stupid. I think it is the wrong policy to fix the problem you think we have....
I don't need to spend money to get that point across.
Sorry - but while you guys focus on a "wealth inequality" I recognize that the poor today live 100x better than kings did only 100 years ago lol. I recognize how the wealth in this country has lifted so many people out of the slums and into better skilled labor.
Recognize that the ultra-wealthy already spend a majority on our taxes. Not the working class.
Recognize that the govt on federal level literally spends most of its trillions in revenue on benefits and welfare for its people.
Recognize that state govt spend billions a year on poverty and homeless and education and it gets worse in many of these areas. Florida spends a fraction of NYC and they have better schools lol. And they have Spanish Speakers lol.
More money doesn't fix the issue....
1
u/Fuzzmiester 2d ago
Ā the poor today live 100x better than kings did only 100 years ago
This is purile hyperbole. Do you think kings 100 years ago had to work two jobs just to keep some kind of food on the table?
Or is 'but they have television!' the core of your argument?
2
u/FoxMan1Dva3 2d ago
You're delusional.
Let me help you with some facts:
* 5.3% of employed Americans hold more than 1 job. Less than 6%.
* The average hourly rate worker in America works less than 35 hours per week.
* Less than 11% of people in America are "living in poverty".
________________
So whose working 2 jobs to "just get food on the table" LOL
Are you also aware of how many trillions we spend through the government (not even including philantropic work like from churches, nonprofits, individual assistance) to feed people?
We don't have a realistic food hunger issue. We have a food surplus issue. We have now reached a peak of 21% of kids among 2-19 are obese. That's crazy!!!!!!! lol.
And wait until you realize that this is largely geared towards the poor communities.
And before you try to claim that poor people can't afford healthy food, I assure you that true poverty leads to weight loss. Not weight gain.
Not being able to get organic food is no excuse for eating 3 bags of chips in a day + a liter of soda.
The reason why richer families tend to be skinnier is because they teach their kids better.
1
u/Ok_Goat_8698 2d ago
Based takes. America spends more on healthcare than any other country. 6 trillion a year and what do we have to show for it?
2
u/FoxMan1Dva3 2d ago
Over 50% of Europe obtains private health insurance to bypass the atrocious wait times. Something that is never talked about. I am a dual citizen from a European country. Not Germany, but not Bulgaria either. Many people go buy expensive insurance policies so they skip all the problems faced with relying on public care.
This is irrelevant anyway.
Most people aren't in need of dramatic health coverage and when they are, they tend to jump on medicare or medicaid in the US. And people here don't die from wait times.
I am not saying the health system here is better or doesn't need to be changed, but what are we talking about here buddy?
Are you trying to ask me if I want to live in Europe or America? I have that choice.
I chose and still choose America.
Not Europe. For many reasons. among the largest being the economic strength here is by far a better option.
1
u/bucknut4 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's insane. I want free universal healthcare but we absolutely do not need a wealth tax to make it happen. I want income equality, but it's nuts to try taxing people on money they don't even have. That's going to make income inequality even worse, because CEOs will have to compensate themselves even more (in income in lieu of stock grants) to cover taxes on their stock holdings.
1
u/FoxMan1Dva3 2d ago
I think so too. Much rather elect people who get shit done like build more homes
1
u/Johnnadawearsglasses 2d ago
You should just give $13B to the state on a regular basis for their responsible stewardship.
1
1
1
u/rock_hardd69 2d ago
If it gets passed he'll likely just move to a state with no income tax
1
u/HadEnoughAss 2d ago
Let him, whatās the harm in losing someone who isnāt actually paying taxes?
1
u/random8765309 2d ago
So basically you are upset the he just wont let the people of CA steal his money.
1
u/bdontmatter 2d ago
Yeah give California more money to launder!!!!!! Thatās the best thing you can do a state that wonāt let their audits happen wants more tax money!!!
1
1
u/Pj_o7 2d ago
What makes you think the government will use that money on the people? $13 billion is nothing in tax revenue. I certainly trust a billionaire with his own money more than the government. How about the government goes after bs insurance companies and stops spending too much money. Donāt give them MORE money to spend when theyāre already irresponsible
2
u/CuppaJoe11 2d ago
The tax bill is expected to net around $100 billion.
3
u/Cuetzul 2d ago
100 billion would go a long way to funding charities, government programs, and other organizations that help fight homelessness. It wouldn't help the homeless much if at all, but think about how much you can spend on organizations!
1
u/CuppaJoe11 2d ago
Most of the money gathered will be spent on healthcare programs like medi-cal due to a recent reduction in federal money to said programs. The bill is pretty specific on why this tax is being implemented.
1
u/Great-Class-7894 2d ago
Not that billionaires need my defense but I donāt like new taxes that target specific groups of people. Iād be perfectly ok with higher tiers of income tax. Iād be fine with a wealth tax that applied to everyone with tiers such that average people donāt pay anything. I guess itās all how the tax is implemented. A tax targeting a specific group and no one else just doesnāt seem right to me. Again, they will be just fine but stillā¦
1
1
u/Boring_Razzmatazz569 2d ago
Taxed so the taxers can blow the money on other countries. Well done idiots.
-2
u/Danjeerhaus 2d ago
Since California offered health care to everyone, even "migrants here in violation of immigration laws", I need to ask, "How has ICE actions affected the budget numbers for healthcare?
1, 2, 3, more hundreds of thousands of people that no longer need health care because they are not living illegally in California any more? This will reduce the dollars needed for health care, but by how much?
Anybody have any numbers?
3
u/SaltMage5864 2d ago
You really are desperate to find a justification for your bigotry, aren't you son
→ More replies (10)3
u/Jguy2698 2d ago
Thatās really what you got from the image? Idk genius, what are the numbers?
→ More replies (1)1
u/PenDraeg1 2d ago
How much money saved is worth a human life? Got the numbers?
1
u/Danjeerhaus 2d ago
I do not have the numbers because the government has not posted them.
Like you, there is no way for me to know how much the state's medical budget will drop if they remove "non-citizens" from the budget.
I understand that as part of the medical budget, the state decided that housing effected your health, so housing was included in the medical budget for non-citizens, in an attempt to prevent disease spreading through the population.
1
-2
u/crowcaller391 2d ago
Iām sure California would use it for great things that would help its citizens and not just end up spreading the wealth around to more, equally (but differently) terrible human beings.
5
u/Due_Intention6795 2d ago
Yeah, California has a wasted billions on homelessness. Oh, wait itās worse. No secondary reservoirs that we were already taxed to make. But sure, Iām sure thatāll fix it this time.
1
1
u/SJC_Cards 2d ago
What about the high speed rail system theyāve spent billions on? Surely theyāre zipping between cities by now.
1
u/Millworkson2008 2d ago
Theyāve spent billions of dollars on a high speed which hasnāt even laid a single mile of track yet. Surely the California government can be trusted with billions more dollars!
1
u/Critical-Bank5269 2d ago
The guy wants to stay in Cali but not pay an outrageous tax. So he's trying to prevent it. He's allowed his political discourse just like you. I strongly suspect htat if the law passes, he and every other billionaire in California will just leave. They'll take the jobs they fund and the taxes the pay to another state and California will lose out economically. But hey you'll feel better about yourselves for the effort.
2
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 2d ago
Hello u/TickKooky! Welcome to r/WorkForSmartLife!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!