From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/19/2026 7:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
    >   
   Nobody in their right mind is going to willingly donate more of their   
   hard earned money to the IRS than the law requires. Seriously?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)