His hairstyle is so cunty. And when I learned more about him I disliked him more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Windsock, toothless proposal. How can anyone trust this guy given how often he reverses his positions to chase headlines?
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 😂
He’s just reading the room and sees it’s popular now.
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.
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.
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.
When I hear “Newsom”, I think “soulless minion of orthodoxy”.
and his insistence i wash my neck whenever i visit is really getting unsettling
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.
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.
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.
Who is the Bernie and DSA endorsed alternative?
Does it matter as long as they are taxed?
He only wants the national wealth tax, not the CA residents-only one, apparently - or so I’ve been led to believe
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?
In reality? Nope. But leftists it seems are fond of letting perfect be the enemy of good so they’ll complain even though the outcome is exactly what they wanted.
The article mentioned something about CA residents being able to sort the national referendum. You should read it
What national referendum? You can’t have a national referendum; there has never been a national referendum; a national referendum would require changing the Constitution.
r2o campaigning for the republicans again.
A statewide billionaire tax is stupid. All it will do is chase rich people out of your state. It only makes sense as a nationwide bill.
Which study did you read that in?
It has already been thoroughly proven that that’s not the case. Rich people live where they do because they want to have the best lifestyle they can, not for tax reasons. There’s already no shortage of tax havens.
Tell that to New Jersey
If this wasn’t California, I might somewhat agree with your statement. These people aren’t going anywhere, because the California coast is obscenely beautiful. Some might leave, but the majority will stay since the tax will end up just being a tiny inconvenience for their level of wealth.
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.
California loses more people each year than live in the entire state of Wyoming, and that’s normal. If you know people that moved states for lower taxes, then I doubt they are billionaires. Why are you, someone who lives outside of California, so invested in a proposed law for a place you don’t live? I don’t live there either, but I don’t care about where billionaires live. I’m just pointing out that it’s mostly empty threats. Remember when Mamdani passed a tax on secondary residences and people threatened to leave? Guess what happened.
I think people on here like to shit all over Newsom for BS reasons. This headline is a great example. He’s against a statewide wealth tax, which makes sense for the reasons I gave. We can agree to disagree, that’s fine.
But has he come on against nationwide wealth tax? I don’t think so. I don’t honestly know what he stands for (which is a legitimate complaint).
Well, given that there is an abominable glut of billionaires in California ruining everything by bribing politicians like Newsom, getting rid of them would be a GREAT result.
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.
Texas is the net benefactor.
That’s assuming that billionaires contribute more to the economy than they receive, which is the opposite of reality.
Not sure what you think will be the benefit
From the article I linked:
when wealth is concentrated in the hands of one person, it tends to stagnate. Billionaires invest in tax shelters, financial assets, and luxury goods that benefit very few. That money circulates less, creates fewer jobs, and contributes less to local economies compared to wealth distributed across more people.
The opportunity cost is massive. Every dollar hoarded in a hedge fund is a dollar not building schools, funding infrastructure, or supporting small businesses. Billionaire spending rarely benefits the broader economy. Especially compared to what working-class or middle-class millionaires would do with that same money.
So yeah, California would do well to offload some of its over hundred billionaires and in the meantime get some of that hoarded wealth flowing through the system again.
You are assuming that the political, financial, criminal, and mental illness baggage that comes with billionaires is worth it. A state filled with billionaires is NOT going to be better than the states that don’t want them. Not for working citizens, anyway.
It’s not in an economy that’s the 4th largest in the world. California led the way with partial zero emissions vehicles and everyone followed suit due to simple economics. Sure, some people may move, but overall this is leading the way.
Taxing a handful of people literally nothing like forcing millions of vehicles to be built differently.
This would be relevant to Newsome if he were proposing a national wealth tax like the California tax he’s opposing, but he’s not. He’s proposing higher income taxes on people who don’t make income and pretending the important part is state vs. federal.
The thing I dislike the most about Newsom is it’s not clear at all what he stands for.
It’s pretty clear what he stands for - his own ambitions. He knows that he can ride a long ways with BOTH sides on his looks, so he’s carefully playing both ends against the middle as confirmed Centrist, which means another 4-8 more years of no appreciable progress on anything this country needs.
I’ve been watching the can get kicked down the road for 50 years now. It’s long past time to deal with it, and he’s a can-kicker.
He may well be describing Trump’s pee pee.
I’d like to think he’s one of the few people in politics that hasn’t actually seen it.
