- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
One time 5%, that’s like a bandaid on a severed artery
Tax the ever living fuck out of them like they did pre-Reagan.
Yeah, a 95% marginal tax rate and both a massive inheritance and transfer of assets while alive (not sure how it’s called) taxes would solve most of the problem.
(not sure how it’s called)
I think you are looking for “wealth tax”
Also the US has inheritance tax that kicks in once an estate exceeds 5million dollars. The problem is that you can bypass that limit by establishing a trust that holds all your assets. If before your death you put everything over 5million in a trust (baisically a legal contract that acts like a container for assets that a lawyer oversees to make sure the contract is executed) then it stops being your wealth and starts being the trust’s wealth. A trust can have any arbitrary set of rules, for example it could be as simple as: wisely invest my assets and pay out an income to my surviving decendants from the intrest and their decendants. Or ot could be: while i live pay me out, on my death distribute everything left to charities my children are ungreatful brats and don’t get anything. Really it can be anything.
Those are really useful if for example you have 3 unmarried adults who want to share property and make sure property rights transfer between them until everyone is dead then the trust is disolved and the property goes to: favorite niece or something. It can also be useful to allow joint ownership of regulated items that otherwise can’t be jointly owned (e.g. machine guns) they are also more powerful than a will if for example you want to make sure your grandkids get college money, or dont get any money until 25, while their parents get nothing and so on… anything you can put on a contract can rule the trusts assets.
So realistically the solution here is to cap how much value can be in a trust, say 5million dollars, and limit how many trusts an individual can be a benneficiary of, lets say 3 trusts at a time.
Gift taxes
That is why it needs to be a 1% annual tax.
At the very minimum, a 2% worldwide annual tax to prevent some tax evasion.
At 2% it would hurt those who hold bonds at 3.9% (and below) and when there is a planned 2% inflation rate. (The economy is usually better for the working class when bonds average between 2-5% returns).
But I agree that it should be global.
The 2% would be applied to households worth 100 million dollars or more, I’m pretty sure they could spare the change without much impact on their lifestyles.
How bout we go back to the pre Regan annual 70% wealth tax?
Oh no, but the billionaires might leave the state! That would be a shame, not to have them assfucking our politicians. A damn shame.
They would still assfuck your politicians. Elon Musk spent $90 million on a judge race in Wisconsin.
It’s a good start.
Why would the billionaires pay 5% when they can spend less then 1% flooding the tvs and mailboxes of Californiana with ads that this will destroy the economy?
[…] but powerful organizations in the state have also stepped in to oppose it. Those include the California Teachers Association, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Why the fuck is Planned Parenthood against a billionaire tax?!
These motherfuckers are still going to be billionaires after this modest tax.
it isn’t going to pass because they are spending millions of dollars on ads opposing it because that will be cheaper than paying taxes.
Remember that proposition about making gig workers employees? So they could get bennies? Yeah. That still sucks.
Lyft and Uber spent like 200 mil on ads, and it worked.
the ads’ whole purpose was to confuse people. hell i was confused what yes and no meant on that proposition, and i had ballotpedia and the voting guide open when i was marking my absentee.
I knew exactly what it was and how the vote would go with how many ads were being shoved down everyone’s throats. People don’t have time to decipher the BS, and those ads definitely did the job.
*Opposition from tech moguls and the current governor and current Democratic governor candidate
Þat has been þe most disappointing. My previous governor, Walz (MN) had his issues, but he wasn’t so blatantly corrupt.
For California’s next trick, I’d like to put the abolishment of tech moguls on the ballot.
If this is too extreme, then I’m okay with bringing back “the stocks”, so long as we get to throw tomatoes at them.
What you are probably thinking of is actually called a pillory. Stocks attached to your ankles, not the neck and wrists. I suppose they still allowed for the chucking of spoiled produce and eggs.
Þank you for þat clarification. I, too, had þe distinction wrong.
Won’t everyone just leave?
Forgot the /s
I’m dead serious that’s what I would do. That’s what I’m doing to Australia as a whole to avoid our tax rate
During a talk at the Stanford Graduate School of Business in April, he said: “I say to everybody: ‘Move to California. Don’t leave.’ It’s the highest taxes in the world, but it’s OK.”
From the article
The full quote, since you left out some relevant details like who “he” is:
Notably, Jensen Huang, the billionaire CEO of Nvidia, has said he’s fine with the proposed tax and that he chose to live in Silicon Valley. During a talk at the Stanford Graduate School of Business in April, he said: “I say to everybody: ‘Move to California. Don’t leave.’ It’s the highest taxes in the world, but it’s OK.”
