I’d like to say this shit should be obvious, but it’s clearly not for most people.

Its almost as if decades of attacking education and critical thought was the first step in destroying our democracy or something.

And then they are surprised to be called controlled opposition.

AOC please. I don't even agree with her on every single thing but she's whip-smart and constantly pushing and principled

The only reason it could be him and not a progressive is if progressives split their votes while the corporate-backed party members defer their votes to him, which is pretty much what happened in 2020’s primary.

If the Democratic primary happens with most states using a form a Ranked Choice Voting for their party’s primary, then progressives have a better chance since the progressive candidates aren’t knocking each other out of the running.

Nah, it's because he can safely back a national tax because it's out of his control and if he did run for president he can use that as a campaign point, and then, if elected, he can claim it's just too hard.

This billionaire has a good intern clapping back on social media but he is absolutely and establishment democrat who wants to accomplish nothing.

His proposal is basically just to tax income at a higher rate on people who have a billion dollars of wealth, which is not a wealth tax, it’s an income tax.

Which is meaningless because people with a billion dollars in wealth don’t really take taxable incomes, they take out loans against assets, or dump enough money in to a money loosing enterprise to counter the income they take from their assets, or they donate all their income to a “charity” which they’re on the board of and basically pays for their lifestyle. Or a million other things you can get away with assuming you have enough money to higher a good tax dodge specialist. Says he wants to patch those loop holes, but there will always be more.

The whole point of a wealth tax is that it’s supposed to create a passive downward pressure on their accumulation of wealth, which income tax doesn’t do, because people don’t build wealth through income, they build wealth through assets.

So that's a talking point, right? Based off a decent chain of thoughts somewhere, i'm just not sure they were yours.

I studied microeconomics. Now i'm not going to say i'm great at it, but it is the use of charts and graphs and equations to determine and explain why people do things. Why people are That Way. Y'know? The math part was easy, the conceptualization, well. That's where people argue in economics anyways.

So here's why a one-time wealth tax on billionaires wouldn't make them move. They gain a lot by being in California and expect to gain further by remaining in California. A single, one-time tax of $5million on someone who has $1billion in wealth^1^ is not that much. It's doubtful they have that many liquid assets, but it is very not hard to get. And their expectations of future gain should theoretically not change because all that's changing is this one time tax. According to the econ bullshit i learned, those one time shocks don't cause behavior change but the long-term revenue and cost streams do. This of course assumes the one lie we all know to be false, that people are what the economics field defines as rational.

^1^i haven't looked into how the FTB is determining wealth. precisely like how the IRS defines income, they use funny words to make "unexpected" outcomes happen. Like, don't get me started on malls and depreciation (i'm sure someone can explain that whole bullshit better than me but it's NEAT)

Not to harp on here, but the other comments didn’t talk as much about the billionaires/corporations fleeing the state part that you brought up.

Realistically, most companies are not leaving California in general because they lose access to one of the biggest economies globally if they do. These companies print money hand over fist for the board of directors and owners.

Many companies will just eat whatever tax since if they leave the state, they lose marketshare and revenue. If the owners themselves leave the state, they’re still paying taxes on what’s generated in the state.

That's what they said about Massachusetts' "millionaire's tax" - a 4% additional income tax on household income above 1 million dollars. And despite what finance rags claim, the data says that between when the tax was voted into law in 2022 and 2024, the number of Mass residents with at least $50 million in total wealth grew 35.2% from 1,954 people to 2,642 people. And the tax brought in an extra $2.46 billion in tax revenue during its first year.

So despite all the crying, the data says that they won't leave. We've seen it happen multiple times across the country over the years. A state or a city enacts a new tax on the wealthy, the wealthy threaten to leave and cry bloody murder, and nothing happens except an increase in tax revenue to be invested back into the area.

where do you get that? no one i know likes him. the conservatives hate him, the liberals hate him, the two other leftists i know hate him, like this could be a geographical oddity but it spans half the state (and one of the leftists is in LA but geographically we consider her an outlier. she likes it that way).

The CA tax is a one-time thing. It's kind of trash, in my opinion. Though, standing in the way of it is even more ghoulish.

This goes back to my question, does it matter as long as the referendum gets passed?

Tell that to New Jersey

I live in a red state and have met tons of people they left California tor tax purposes. I guarantee the state will lose money from doing this.

Perfect. They move to Texas and California loses the income and Texas is the net benefactor.

Not sure what you think will be the benefit. Statewide wealth tax does not make sense period. Nationwide or not at all.

The thing I dislike the most about Newsom is it’s not clear at all what he stands for.

Taxing a handful of people literally nothing like forcing millions of vehicles to be built differently.