From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:52:45 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/19/2026 4:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:16:31 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/19/2026 2:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:18:20 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2/19/2026 2:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:47:12 -0500, Wilson    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2/19/2026 4:38 PM, Dude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/19/2026 12:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:39:03 -0800, Dude    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Critics, argue it could negatively impact working people and that   
   the   
   >>>>>>>>>> top 1% already pay nearly half of the state's income taxes.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And so it is that the labor movement has become thugs and a cabal of   
   >>>>>>>>> communist academics.  Nah, you can't fool me with that shit.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That's because you have not thought this through. Otherwise, you would   
   >>>>>>>> have posted your arguments, pro or con, to this list, instead of   
   >>>>>>>> infantile emotional outbursts.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The taxable obligation is wholly detached from a liquidity event!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Unlike income and capital gains taxes, a wealth tax is entirely   
   >>>>>>>> untethered from a liquidity event. “Asset-rich, cash-poor” taxpayers   
   may   
   >>>>>>>> be forced to sell assets to meet their tax obligations, risking   
   >>>>>>>> destabilizing asset and capital markets.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Also, on a more personal level, consider whether one or both spouses   
   are   
   >>>>>>>> California residents, the tax is imposed at a household level, so a   
   >>>>>>>> couple with a combined net worth of $1 billion or more is subject to   
   the   
   >>>>>>>> tax, whereas two unmarried individuals with just under $1 billion   
   apiece   
   >>>>>>>> would not be taxed.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Reportedly, some high net worth couples are seriously considering   
   >>>>>>> divorce to avoid the proposed Cali billionaire wealth tax.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Suits me.  It is not up to us to preserve their marriages.  Pay your   
   >>>>>> damn taxes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Wealthy people already pay most of the federal and state income tax.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You get to work! Pay your fair share of income tax! How about 50% of all   
   >>>>> income, including government pension and social security?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>> If I were a billionaire,   
   >>>>   
   >>> You just proved my point. Not everyone is a billionaire and most are   
   >>> wealthy on paper only.   
   >>   
   >> So those of us who lack a billion $ (paper or not) should be allowed   
   >> to pay less and they should be required to pay more.   
   >>   
   >Key word: Progressive   
   >  The United States has a progressive federal income tax system, meaning   
   >that tax rates increase as taxable income rises.   
   >   
   >Under this system, higher-income households pay a larger percentage of   
   >their income in federal taxes compared to lower-income households, who   
   >may none at all.   
      
   Except that there are enough thisnthat exemptions to make sure those   
   who want to escape taxes can do that.  Some pay no tax.   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)