From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 22/02/2026 21:16, Dude wrote:   
   > On 2/22/2026 9:43 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >> On 2/22/2026 11:33 AM, Julian wrote:   
   >>> On 22/02/2026 16:13, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/21/2026 6:40 PM, Julian wrote:   
   >>>>> On 21/02/2026 16:56, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2/21/2026 2:28 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2/20/26 11:53 AM, Dude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> i hope they leave   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> billionaires don't spend their money in ways that are useful to   
   >>>>>>> local economies, and they have a lot retarded ways to not   
   >>>>>>> actually pay tax.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> in fact they buy up excess property making it harder for everyone   
   >>>>>>> else they leave, so better that they don't try to live here   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So how much property, income & sales tax do the billionaires pay   
   >>>>>> to the bottomless state budget pit that's Kalifornia?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I guess at some point, on this trajectory, some shareholders might   
   >>>>> be moved to sue companies that don't relocate from Kalifornia for   
   >>>>> breaching their fiduciary duty to maximise returns on investment?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In the UK publicly listed companies are legally obliged to maximise   
   >>>>> profit... which is why, for instance, they are frantically   
   >>>>> unravelling their DIE extraordinary popular delusions and the   
   >>>>> madness of crowds.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If a big wealth tax is implemented the techbros who stay will either   
   >>>> be forced to liquidate a large percentage of their assets driving   
   >>>> down the value of the stock, or give that stock directly to the   
   >>>> taxing agency making the State the owner of a part of those companies.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Guess which of those two the politicians will want?   
   >>>   
   >>> If they can't confiscate have the stock, people's property,   
   >>> they won't think twice about trashing the asset values in   
   >>> millions of people's pension funds just out of spite.   
   >>   
   >> Good point. Envy drives a lot of this.   
   >>   
   > The problem is the state budget shortfall, caused by mismanagement. So,   
   > a one-time wealth tax is just a temporary Band-aid.   
   >   
   > The initiative aims to address the state's budget strains without   
   > relying on further income tax increases, targeting about 200 of the   
   > state's wealthiest residents.   
      
   You believe they'd only drink from the fountain once?   
   Other people's money is more addictive than a meth-crack-smack speedball.   
   It'll only amplify mismanagement.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)