Fuck Newsom. Find me a Californian Mamdani dammit!!!
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
the problem is that American evangelicalism has tied money and goodness together with the prosperity gospel.
The more money you have, the more gooderer you are, and all you have to do is give all your money to (church/fund/whatever target) and god will give it back to you three-fold!
and there for, being against money by wanting to tax people means you are big evilsatanbad.
That man is the definition of afflueza, which I hear is only cured by Luigi fever or something idk all the weird media labels confuse me
You mean this rich well connected individual isn’t going to burn their friends. You don’t say!
Yeah, we know. We’ve seen this dog-and-pony show for DECADES.
a guy who looks like a sleazy wall street exec, car salesman or television producer doesn’t want to tax rich people???
i never would have guessed!!!
at his best he still looks like an aging patrick bateman.
a big difference between 30+ years ago and now is that the lizards can’t hide their tails; clinton and bush looked like normal american men; this dude just walked out of the bourgeoisie salon and has likely memorized his stylist and publicists cell numbers but probably can’t remember the name of his sons/daughters.
Fuck newsom in general, but I could see a rational argument that the tax should be national to prevent billionaire Californias from moving to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe.
And if he’s president, he will say he can’t enact the tax because billionaires would flee the US.
We’ve had the same arguments in France. The economist who proposed the tax actually used data from the US to show that few rich people actually leave the place they’re in, because that’s where they live, meet people for business or pleasure, etc.
This could be evaluated for California too.
Mamdani proved unequivocally that they won’t actually move. Stop giving in to the bullshit billionaires are spouting to try to stop themselves being taxed.
Also, who fucking cares if they leave? Billionaires are a burden to the society and economy of any city or state they live in.
And yes, FUCK NEWSOM! Say it loud and say it proud. NO MORE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS!!!
He’s not arguing for that. He wants a national tax that both isn’t on the ballot and wouldn’t tax billionaires on their wealth.
it wouldn’t help a billionaire avoid california taxes. their income is too diversified.
Good point, let’s vote again in CA after it’s been enacted nationally.
Please don’t let this guy be who ends up on the 2028 ticket.
Democrats just be opening the door for Republicans every election since 2016
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 DNC will pull every trick in the book to make sure it’s him and not a progressive… Then he’ll pick a right-wing running mate and liberals will claim any criticism is enabling whatever Nazi Vampire the GOP puts forward.
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.
2020 only had like a month or so when the progressives totaled more than 50% in polling.
The good news is in 2028 is I can’t really think of many viable progressives in the first place, and there are a ton of mediocre moderates who all think this is their time.
I think we’d better prepare a progressive front runner sooner rather than later. Otherwise we end up like California’s most recent governor primary where the most progressive candidates didn’t really step forward until the last minute, knocked each other out, and now California gets another Newsome-lite type candidate as the front runner against a Republican rather than up against a Progressive.
What happened is largely the fault of the voting system being a jungle primary instead of a more favorable system like a Ranked Robin version of ranked choice voting.
Dont worry, itll be Shapiro or Pritzker.
He’s just reading the room and sees it’s popular now.
It’s worse, this is Nixon and the EPA all over again.
Or Obamacare even.
They know it’s unavoidable, and if they don’t act something effective might finally happen.
So the oligarchs will pass something that says “tax billionaires” but absolutely no one will fall under it. When a progressive runs on “tax billionaires” everyone will point to this do nothing bill and say it’s already done.
Taking the wind out of the movements sails…
I’d like to say this shit should be obvious, but it’s clearly not for most people.
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.
Buddy…
People back in 1969 didn’t put it together either.
1969 people didnt have the total sum of human knowledge and infinite possibilities towards personal improvement and learning in their pocket.
yes, AI and the internet will save us all. Its the modern equivalent to DuPonts “better living through chemistry” slogan.
I love when people reply to what they imagine I posted, instead of what i actually posted.
Yeah, but they said 1909 people didn’t have national TV news…
Not to mention the Internet only tells you someone noticed something, another way to look at that is they had more critical thinking than we do today, because they had to fill in the blanks themselves.
It’s insane how many times I’ve out time into a comment pulling form multiple different areas, and someone’s just says “source” without any context. And a single link that looks like it backs one thing up, is taken as proof for everything.
Just the concept that someone is putting things together is inconceivable to people, that expect one single article that “proves” everything.
It’s really fucking dangerous when a society blindly accepts authority like that, even without a demented fascist running the show.
Then he should endorse opposition to this: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prohibit_Taxes_on_Retirement_Holdings_and_Personal_Savings_Amendment_(2026)
Fuckers are now trying to add it to California Constitution so no wealth tax would be possible anymore.
He’s not even proposing a wealth tax, his suggestion is literally toothless because it focuses on taxing income of billionaires more, which we already know doesn’t work because they don’t make an income.
Nothing about Newsom has seemed honest since day 1. He’s just another opportunistic politician.
His hairstyle is so cunty. And when I learned more about him I disliked him more.
5% tax on about 200 Californian billionaires who hold $2.2 trillion in wealth
5% of 2.2 trillion is $11 billion, right?
Jesus that would end poverty.
5% of 2.2 trillion is 0.11 trillion, or 110 billion.
deleted by creator
No way, really?
The guy who changed laws for his rich friends is against his rich friends having to pay comparatively insignificant sum that wont hurt their dragon hordes or its infinite growth in any significant fashion?
What do you MEAN he DOESNT want to? He SAID he did and that’s WAY MORE PROOF then him LITERALLY trying to BLOCK Legislation in his State to Tax Billionaires!
He wants to tax them at the national level. Taxing them at the state level accomplishes nothing except running them out of the state.
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.
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.
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 wealth1 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.
1i 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.
What “economy” are you referring to that’s exclusive to California?
People and businesses located in California buy goods and services, and produce goods and services that are sold both in the local region and abroad. This exchange of goods and services is frequently called an “economy”.
The economic activity within the state of California would make it the 4th largest economy in the world if it were an independent country, and it is the largest subregional economy in the world.
I know what an economy is. I asked what economy is exclusive to California.
And I told you. California’s. It’s only like the biggest state economy in the United States.
Being big does not make it exclusive. You can move to Texas and still buy and sell all the things in California.
What economy is exclusive to the United States?
None. Next question?
The people. People makeup an economy and are the primary driving force. Also the cashflow of those people. If big businesses want to make more money then they will want to be doing business with Californians.
TIL people only exist in California and also can’t do business with California outside of California.
My guy, let’s drop the snark for a minute here if we’re having a dialogue. You know we’re talking about Californians and business in California.
Not everyone lives in California, but based on the context of the conversation of California’s economy, then businesses doing business with Californians are subject to California law and California taxes. If Amazon wants to sell to people in California then they have to play ball by California’s rules for instance.
You know we’re talking about Californians and business in California.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, sorry. Some vague mention of “people” and nothing to do with the California economy or why billionaires can’t engage with it from outside of California.
Amazon wants to sell to people in California then they have to play ball by California’s rules for instance.
We’re not discussing Amazon or any other company, we’re discussing billionaires. Bozos can easily move his primary residence to Texas or Colorado and pay his taxes accordingly, and Amazon can continue doing 100% of the things they’re already doing.
California’s it seems like.
He was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was Don, Jr.'s concubine for a long time. They’re all peas in the same pod. He’s a Manchurian MAGA.
And CA in large love this guy.
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).
Then why do y’all keep voting for him?
you’re asking the wrong person dude. it’s either [Democrat vs. Republican, Democrat wins] in the general so the real election is which Democrat wins the primary, which fuck if I can explain I voted for Porter this time.
Oh nice, i also want porter but might might end up with a British billionaire so there is that 😂
yeah, in general elections we end up with someone 22% of the voting population actually wanted as governor/senator/whatever other had-to-call-a-statewide-election office, about 40-50% of us holding our nose and saying “well at least they’re not a republican” and the rest are republicans. At least that’s what it feels like to me.
like flip the parties and that’s what it was like living in Utah. it was weird. there used to be a lot of overlap between liberal-state conservatives and conservative-state liberals. not just the candidates, the people too. like, a lot of us/them believed in the same things and principles. not so much anymore
