From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/19/2026 11:00 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 2/19/26 1:47 PM, 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.   
   >   
   > please let us witness *that* timeline 😂🙏   
   >   
   Apparently, you have not thought this through, Nick.   
      
   A 5% California wealth tax on a $1 billion net worth would result in a   
   $50 million tax liability!   
      
   This proposed one-time tax targets the approximately 246 billionaires in   
   the state, potentially costing them between $50 million and $13 billion   
   each, depending on their total wealth.   
      
   Does anyone except the Teamsters Union think this is a good idea?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)