From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/22/2026 4:23 PM, Julian wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Of course. They'll never stop at just one. And with inflation in 50   
   years everyone will be a billionaire.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)