this post was submitted on 10 May 2026

189 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29712 readers

2280 users here now

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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

189

With food benefit cuts looming in the US, Californians eye billionaire tax (www.aljazeera.com)

submitted 1 day ago by TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Greer Dove’s days are packed with studying business and finance, as well as doing administrative work at college, along with caring for her eight-year-old daughter with special needs. But once a week, Dove, a single mother, makes sure to drop in at the food bank in California’s Marin County to pick up vegetables, fruit and other food. Along with the federal government’s food benefits, they keep her housing running. “We need this so we can keep functioning at a high level,” she says. “She loves fruit, so I make sure to get it,” she says of her daughter.

Dove, who is also looking for a full-time job, has worked in restaurants, event management, retail, television shows, office administration and payroll over the years. But she has been on the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) for six years, and with the food bank, for more than three years. Before she got food benefits, Dove fed her daughter all she had and skipped meals or looked around for snacks in the offices she worked at to get her through the day.

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

If this becomes a State's rights thing we are probably going to see some more horrible shit in the South.

People don't really talk about what generational wealth really means down here. Chattel slavery is their God given right. Jim Crow was their -meet you in the middle". They believe they have been the victim of the largest property theft of all time.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If calling for a billionaire tax is hate speech, then I am an out and proud fucking bigot.

Starving children to make white men and pick me Indians fat and fed. Fuck them.

Edit: Please explain to me why Rick Scott, who grew up in poverty on this shit is so hellbent on pulling up the ladder behind him...

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 10 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Because you only get to the top by stabbing others in the back to step up. The natural consequence is that only the bad people are on top. The rest of us have morals. We all know how this ends.

[–] Batmorous@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Its not the only way its just what the system encourages. It all depends on the person if they fully go through with it

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago

Well. Having morals did help one person get to the top. But then everything went side ways with him after.

His name was Jimmy Carter and he proved that good, just people just aren't able to make it work at the top.

[–] 10thGlyphix@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

But we spend trillions on murdering people in foreign countries and flexing. If only we could find the money for Healthcare, education, and feeding the hungry. Oh well, guess its time to spend hundreds of millions on giant ballroom for a giant D.

[+] panthera_@lemmy.today -12 points 1 day ago (5 children)

It's not going to work. Billionaires will simply leave California resulting in less tax revenue.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Then you pass an exit tax law. Norway did this. 38%.

Media is constantly telling us we need to succumb to blackmail of billionaires leaving.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2025/11/14/can-a-5-wealth-tax-on-200-billionaires-save-or-sink-california/

The most common issue raised by skeptics of wealth taxes is “capital flight”. As discussed in a Tax Notes article, “such a tax would signal to wealthy taxpayers that they should reside elsewhere.” This article goes on to discuss that high-income taxpayers pay the majority of state income taxes in California, and even if a small number of those individuals leave, it could lead to long-term tax collection consequences.

This concern has been underscored by numerous academic studies. Most recently, an NBER working paper co-authored by Jakobsen, Kleven, Kolsrud, Landais, and Munoz finds that 1 one percentage-point increase in the top wealth tax rate in Sweden and Denmark leads to an outward migration of wealthy taxpayers by two percent. Other work in the American Economic Review by Moretti and Wilson documents that variation in jurisdictional taxes significantly influences the location of talent, suggesting that higher tax burdens lead individuals to relocate.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 12 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

You might think so, but that's not what happens. Also, fuck them if they won't pay their fair share. Good riddance to the fucking ghouls.

Such proposals have raised predictable outrage from the rich, along with threats that they’ll move elsewhere where taxes are lower and dire predictions that their fellow plutocrats will refuse to move in.

Yet there’s scant evidence for these consequences. In fact, when Massachusetts passed a “millionaires tax” in 2023, conservatives claimed the rich would flee. But two years later, they haven’t — and Massachusetts has collected $5.7 billion for infrastructure and public education. -Robert Reich

[–] Batmorous@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Let's make it happen in every state!! We got this!!!!

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

From https://finance.yahoo.com/news/only-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html

Six of California’s 214 billionaires have been widely reported to have left the state in time to avoid a proposed 5% wealth tax—but that small cohort would have collectively generated $27 billion in tax revenue, roughly a fourth of the initiative’s projected $100 billion haul.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So there's still an expected $73 billion in tax from the remaining billionaires.
That's $73 billion more than without that tax.
How is that not a good result?

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They might leave. States such as Texas and Florida are probably encouraging them to come.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Let them go.
Nothing of value will be lost.

[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Some will, but why would California want to keep around useless leeches that take from local services and dont contribute to society at all? California is one of the most desirable locations for the rich to live on the planet. It is propaganda produced by morons that they dont have the power to cash in on that. Believe it or not, but these taxes will make california even more economically competitive as the money is reinvested into infrastructure and human capital instead of yachts. Its insane how badly conservatives have brain washed people into thinking looting public coffers for the rich is the only way to run an economy. Very few fled New York when Mamdani was elected, and almost nobody will do shit about California taxing the rich correctly.

[–] DigDoug@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They always threaten to, but they never actually do.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Should NYC take that chance?

[–] DigDoug@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Why not? All the regular people who actually pay tax will remain.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Because if they go they, they might not return.

[–] DigDoug@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

...okay? Good riddance, then.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you think or even have proof that billionaires pay tax?
They rather spend the money on ways that help them avoid doing so.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

If that's the case, how would the billionaire tax be effective?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They will tax the wealth, not the income which is legally zero because they borrow money against it.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2025/11/14/can-a-5-wealth-tax-on-200-billionaires-save-or-sink-california/

In addition to concerns surrounding capital flight, there are numerous other concerns with imposing a wealth tax. For starters, it can be very difficult to value a taxpayer’s wealth. Naturally, a stock and securities portfolio maintains accurate valuations on a regular basis. However, real estate assets have much looser valuations, and some assets like artwork require professional assessments. When considering the entire portfolio of assets for California’s billionaires, it remains unclear as to how expensive it might be to value a taxpayer’s wealth accurately, not to mention how long it will be litigated once that taxpayer inevitably argues the valuation. Additionally, enforcing a wealth tax can create liquidity problems for taxpayers as they might have to sell assets to meet the tax liabilities, and it could lead to substantial tax planning that results in the taxpayers gaming the system, and thus, the proposal would not have the intended effect.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

They hide their income so they don't pay tax. This is a wealth tax. On their wealth. Like the middle class pays with their property tax.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -3 points 19 hours ago

California tax is based on income. Consequently, the more income the higher the tax.