The constant texts/calls, emails and ads everywhere are really trying to prevent this proposition from passing. What do y’all think?

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    28 days ago

    In London, UK, they raised taxes on the rich and they fled to Dubai: no economic losses were observed, the properties being taxes were purchased and almost all of the labourers working for those rich were foreign or outsourced.

    In NYC, they raised taxes on the rich in 2022 and after Mamdani was elected in 2025, the number of millionaires steadily continued to climb.

    Newsom’s a fucking idiot and he’s throwing away is political career and any chance of presidency. Still better than any Republican, though.

  • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    Taxing wealth has two benefits - first is more to spend on the budget, but another is reducing inequality. It’s weird, but our world would be better off if all personal holdings over a billion just vanished into smoke.

    Wealth (if just dropped into S&P) has been going up by double digit %s in 10 of the last 13 years. 10% of a billion is 100million USD in growth just for the talent of ‘having money’. It’s a runaway train and we need to have a mechanism to limit the concentration before it’s too late.

    Pro-tip: it might already be

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      The second order effect is the value, especially for a much bigger wealth tax.

      If we pulled a few hundred billion out of Larry Ellison, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos’s pocketbooks, we could buy the Air Force twelve or thirteen screws.

      But more importantly, we’ve cut the mikes from their stack of financial amplifiers. They can’t command the attention of government far beyond their position as individual horrible men anymore. Their particular vision for a futuristic hellscape has to compete in the market of ideas. They can’t afford national big-brand media or to surround themselves with phalanxes of lawyers.

      This social benefit doesn’t show up on a flat spreadsheet, and it’s willfully ignored by analysis that stops with “the money dries up.”

    • FuckyourFeels@lemmy.worldBannedOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      Thank goodness we have mechanisms like the 2nd amendment if it is too late right? Oh wait, it’s illegal to form a self organized militia in California because… Black panthers were too scary for the white boomers 😂😂

    • FuckyourFeels@lemmy.worldBannedOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      Please don’t amplify billionaire disinformation campaigns.

      Kinda silly take when this shit is being spammed to everyone in California? I couldn’t find any discussion of Prop 40 anywhere, especially pro Prop 40. You can’t ignore the campaign against it and simultaneously expect it to win can you?

  • PodPerson@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    28 days ago

    The “drive people out of California” argument for this prop is super weak. If it passes and you’re a billionaire, you’ll pay the one-time tax regardless if you move out of the state, as it applies retroactively (back to a certain date - don’t recall what that date is off the top of my head). Plus, do we really believe the ultra wealthy are going to pack it up and move to Texas or Kentucky or wherever? DOUBT.

  • lemmygarden@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    27 days ago

    I’m voting yes. I assume if I were to look on Reddit, the most vocal and upvoted comments would say to vote no on prop 40.