To be fair and non-reactionary: I have not read the details of this proposal. My understanding is that the tax is a 1% tax on wealth up to $1B and 1.5% for everything over $1B anyone who relocates out of the state. I presume this means that it would apply to wealth gained during one's time in California.
Forgetting the knee-jerk defense of this stupidity, how could this possibly be Constitutional? Are there some details I haven't read where this is a recoup of benefits given to people/businesses that the state feels they should be paid back for with continued income/property tax revenue? Sort of like how you'd owe back a part of the signing bonus if you left before a contract ended?
I don't see how this could be legal otherwise. Someone who knows better should educate me.
illegals. Libs are very creative in finding ways to get a cut of the redistribution of wealth. Of course, Pelosi just pursues insider trading now.
(no message)
Seems like it’s a restraint on alienation which should be illegal.
Life imitating art.
Link: https://youtu.be/jnpE-hGNVj8?si=ZXvlLIQCksHbR5EI
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I wonder if our Putin devotees will demur?
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
the history behind this and similar efforts...VERY intriguing...
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/02/newsom-proposal-tax-loophole/
Link: https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/california-wealth-and-exit-tax-shows-a-window-into-the-future
(no message)
A "surtax" of 4% on income over $1MM in a year. Or whatever % makes sense, but such that the really high levels of income beyond what 99.9% of the population could ever make in a year gets a healthy tax rate.
I don't like Wealth Tax as a concept. The money was already taxed at least once, and likely more via Capital Gains. It's just stealing. Increase the marginal rates to levels that Reagan actually brought it "down" to, and you get the same effect. Taxing what some activist or politician determines is "wealth" at some arbitrary percentage is a really ugly slippery slope.
Consumption based taxes make the most sense to me, and you could offset it with credits if you want for poor people.
Sorry to be a broken record on this, but the foundation of Coleman Hughes' argument is that privilege is a function of class, not race or sexuality or whatever. So, it's great if grandad was an oil baron or whatever, but we're going to tax your yacht purchase at a high rate.
(no message)
But you could create an actual budget, but that's asking the same people that created the problem to fix it.
'Oxfam'...I would think you'd be more interested in what they have to say about wealth inequality, than those who continually promise "Trickle Down" benefits...
Link: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years
(no message)
(no message)
Sacramento libs devise some bizarre policies that never get passed. We shall see.
(no message)
It's absurd. And so is a Wealth Tax. Again, increase the marginal rates on the highest levels, simplify the Capital Gains tax, and you've got it covered.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)