politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I believe, and this is as diplomatic as I care to be, that he is perhaps concerned with billionaires fleeing the state and that a national approach could prevent that.
On the other hand it is more likely that his resistance to the CA tax and cheerleading of a national approach is purely performative as it will simply not happen at that scale, so that his pseudo-progressive veneer isn’t stripped away.
I think that's more likely
That's really pretty standard Democrat fake leftist strategy - only openly advocate for a leftist proposal when there's no chance that it'll pass.
Isn't it a fake leftist strategy is to argue against voting for anyone that wants to tax billionaires?
It's a leftist strategy to call out two faced billionaire friendly Democrats like Gavin fucking Newsom
Gavin is the true Democratic party distilled to its purest essence: millionaires using leftist rhetoric to seduce disgruntled workers, while filling their pockets by serving the interests of other millionaires and billionaires.
They'll implement a flagship "leftist" legislation (that in any other part of the world would be seen as clear right) for the next opposite administration to tear down, while keeping all the bullshit that's already in place.
There's a billionaire tax on the CA ballot currently. Newsome has actively done everything he could to oppose it, and has promised to veto it if it passes. He doesn't want to tax billionaires, he wants the vote to happen in a forum that it won't pass in.
If they are not paying taxes anyway, why would that even matter?
It’s not that they are providing $0 in tax income, it’s that it’s nearly 0%. It’s still a chunk of change.
I’ve heard that we wouldn’t feel the impact for 25 years.
Even so, kick them out. They can live in beautiful Houston Texas, or sunny Arkansas. Or maybe they will decide paying up is worth the cost of being a resident of California
Except evidence doesn't support mass flight of the rich with higher taxes anyway.
It's all bluster. When you have households and businesses both supported by dozens to hundreds of employees you can't simply sell your house and buy a new one. You'd need all new staff to cater to your needs, would have to get new business licensing and real estate for your businesses to move, there's just a whole lot more than pulling up stakes and moving state when you're a fat ass dragon sitting on a hoard of stolen gold.
"I can't tax billionaires in California, because they'd leave California"
"I can't tax billionaires nationally, because they'd leave the nation"
"I can't tax billionaires globally, because they'd leave the planet"
There will never be a finish line in front of which these billionaire-class guardians won't shuffle their feet, nor a goalpost that they won't carry further. It's some real "I'll release my taxes after I get elected" energy.
We don't even need a billionaire's tax for an "economic reset". I mean, we do because it's not healthy for our economy or our political system. But what will happen with a billionaire's tax? The money will just go to the government, which will spend it in arcane ways that the average person has little visibility or voice on.
What we need is an increase to the minimum wage to whatever it would've been if it hadn't been consistently frozen and re-frozen and with mandatory CoLA, universal healthcare, repeal of Citizens United, repeal of whatever decision it was that said a company's ultimate responsibility is to shareholders, a breakup of a whole bunch of overweighted conglomerates, a breakup of media empires, a ban on "entertainment" masquerading as "news", a reform of the Supreme Court, vetc. There's a whole bunch of other stuff as well. But there's a whole bunch of stuff that could get accomplished without a billionaire's tax.
Taxing billionaires would benefit regular people even if the government burned the money. Or buried it. It would reduce the price of assets, like housing, and make them more affordable for regular people.
Sure, it would be better spend the money on healthcare or infrastructure, but even if we just subsidized the underwater basketweaving industry, we would still be better off.
once he become president he is going to champion a world billionaire tax and say no to a national one.
Not sure about his motivations, but we absolutely cannot be playing states off of one another to see who can bend over the hardest for the Epstein Class.
Fuck that noise.
The idiots, aka 99%of voters, will only remember him promoting the national billionaire tax.
My thoughts exactly