Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Right, that’s what I was referring to in the opening line of my last paragraph. There’s a tax proposed on the 200 Californians with fortunes of over $1 billion, a supposedly one-time, temporary 5% tax on their net worth over $1 billion with an option to spread the payments over five years (but paying interest if the billionaire in question spreads it out). Real Estate, pensions and retirement accounts are excluded from the wealth calculation. The fund would be aimed at health care spending (90%) with a smaller amount to K-12 education and SNAP funding (10%).
A Texas law firm is weighing in on the eight separate legal challenges that Billionaires would likely make against the act:
- Dormant Commerce. All new taxes must be applied to an activity substantially within the nexus state, must be fairly apportioned, must be nondiscriminatory against interstate commerce and be fairly related to the services the state provides. Worldwide assets and generated wealth would be subject to the tax.
- Retroactivity. You can’t tax people who were residents of CA retroactively, per Due Process clauses in both U. S. and CA constitutions.
- Bill of Attainder. U.S. Constitution forbids states from enacting laws that single out specific individuals or groups and imposes punishment.
- Equal Protection Clause in both CA and US Constitutions, argues that a wealth tax discriminates between ultra-wealthy and everyone else.
- 0.04% Tax Cap. Under CA Constitution, property tax cannot exceed 0.04% of the value on a variety of isntruments, which is why the bill’s proponents are referring to it as an excise tax, not a wealth tax.
- Uniformity. Under CA Constitution, all property taxes must be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value.
- Right to Travel. Can’t levy taxes on people who have left the state and are no longer residents.
- Takings Clause. The state and Fed govt’ can’t take private property without providing just compensation.
California 2026 Billionaire Tax Act | Thought Leadership | Baker Botts
I read years ago that your waiter is an inverse predictor of economic times. When you have a terrible waiter, the economy is doing great because the good waiters have better jobs. When you have a great waiter, the economy is terrible because the waiter can’t find a better job.
(Trump is not now, and never has been, a threat to the Republic. He is a threat to a system of ordered values that are so dear to the heart of a coterie academic and intellectual elites that they confuse it with the Republic itself. The resemblance to Andrew Jackson almost exactly 200 years ago is uncanny, down to the personality disorder.
Might be the best paragraph I’ve read on this board. Because that’s the nature of the Left. They’ve won so much and so often that they equate their system of ordered values with that of the Republic. And Trump is a genuine threat to their ordered values.
As for the wealth tax proposals that have been advanced…no, none of them bear resemblance to your wealth tax proposal, GR, and I’m not certain that they ever will…not even Mitt Romney, who proposed an estate tax on estates over $100 million at death:
Opinion | Mitt Romney: Tax the Rich, Like Me – The New York Times
Odd to me how so many Democrats protect the wealthy. Like Adams opposing the NYC rent freeze. Maybe I should be for it given that my son is renting in southern Manhattan:
New York Mayor Adams moves to block Zohran Mamdani’s 2026 rent freeze
I hope it happens. The challenge we face is that every two years, short-term thinking prevails.
Along those lines, Newsom’s popularity has increased. Hisfavorability rating increased from 46% to 56% and the California legislature’s rating has improved from 45% to 53%.
Newsom’s favorability rating surges in California – POLITICO
The challenge with short-term thinking is that it’s great…until you hit an obstacle or you run out of other people’s money.
[quote quote=10738]GR, your wealth tax concept is about to get a real-world test. A ballot initiative in California is being proposed by the healthcare workers union. A one-time, 5% tax on California’s 255 billionaires, solely on their wealth over $1 billion. Supporters say it could raise $100 billion and offset looming cuts to Medicaid. Not surprisingly, Gavin Newsom is against it. Newsom’s team is launching a PAC called “Stop the Squeeze,” correctly terming it a “can of worms sliding down a slippery slope (two cliches at once, must be good) by taxing cars, houses, wheelbarrows and everything else.” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan is against it for the best reason (I think) stating that “I don’t know that people fully appreciate the vulnerability we face as a state when it comes to our revenue sources.” True that. 1/3rd of CA revenue comes from the Top 1%. The California Campaign to Introduce a First-of-Its-Kind Billionaire’s Tax – WSJ[/quote]
Gavin Newsom opposes California ‘billionaire tax’ as he eyes 2028 White House bid
Knew it. He’s conscious of and concerned about billionaires leaving (a) California and (b) the Democrat party. So Newsom isn’t going to say or do anything to offend the state’s billionaires.
Hollywood ready to back Newsom:
Newsom 2028: Hollywood Donors Line Up Behind Governor’s Expected White House Bid
Do we really want people who make their living doing make-believe choosing our president?
Along those lines, liberal Democrats refer to Trump voters “getting impatient” over inflation.
Trump Vowed to ‘End Inflation’ — His Voters Are Impatient
Well, now. Apparently no Biden voter ever got impatient over his rampant, literally worst-in-two-generations inflation. And all the Lefties denied that rampant spending with no attendant production would lead to inflation. Biden built a bubble that had staying power–inflation is legendarily difficult to tame. Reagan found that out with Carter’s inflation.
Great points. I can get beach time in California for a fraction of the cost of Hawaiian beach time.
Some California resorts suffer the same issues. 33 years ago, we went to Hotel Del Coronado just off San Diego. It was quiet, peaceful, no build-up…really just that great old hotel, all built from interlocking wood. Had a wonderful time. A few years back, my industry held their annual get together in San Diego, and I thought “Great, I’ll revisit the Hotel Del.”
Mistake. Newly-built condos and townhouses surround the hotel, prices have been Disney-fied and there were massive throngs of tourists. I can’t wait to not go back…
…according to the Washington Examiner, Newsom is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination. They rank the Top 10, and here’s their comments on Newsom:
1. Gavin Newsom
It is early, but Newsom is simply the undisputed front-runner to be the 2028 Democratic Party presidential nominee. Outside of one recent outlier, Newsom holds a commanding lead over his probable rivals in all recent polls, and he is the unquestioned leader of the Democratic Party in the nation’s largest state. And unlike everyone else on the list, it is clear Newsom wants the job and fully intends to run in 2028. He has traveled to all the early presidential primary states for listening tours and constantly asserts himself into national conversations, taking on not just Trump, but also Vice President JD Vance and Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Greg Abbott (R-TX). Newsom is not as young as Ocasio-Cortez or Moore, but at 58, he is decades younger than Biden, and while he is not as natural a social media talent as Ocasio-Cortez, he still gets it. Unlike Gallego, Shapiro, and Beshear, Newsom has never needed to win a Republican vote in his life, and he has a left-wing governing record to prove it. But Newsom does not need any Republican votes to win the Democratic nomination. He only needs to consolidate Democrats, and he already starts with more of them than anyone else. With unmatched name recognition, a massive donor network, a polished national media presence, and the implicit backing of the party’s most powerful coastal institutions, Newsom begins this race not just as a contender, but as the prohibitive favorite.Here’s the remaining nine in order:2. AOC. Youngest by a decade at 39. Has mastered social media. Has an national institutional support base.3. Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland4. Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona5. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. Ranked his poorly because he’s a centrist, I kid thee not, and out of touch with the Progressives.6. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky. See Shapiro. Too white, too male, too out of touch with Progressives and has prioritized jobs and growth over carbon reduction, the bastid.
7. Sen. Chris Murphy of CT. Almost the perfect Progressive with daily TikTok savvy, Trump resister, and separated from the mother of his two children.8. Pete Buttigieg. Yeah, this low. Controls the rich, single, white women vote, .but no other Dem constituency likes him. 0% support among black voters.9. Gov. JB Pritzker. Worth $4 billion. Not moderate, not business-friendly, straight progressive10. Kamala Harris. Only Presidents Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison and Richard Nixon lost their first presidential general election and won their second. Vapid, self-serving, no vision for the country. Pass.We complain about asset inflation and home affordability but ignore the risks in asset ownership. Homes aren’t easy to maintain, and the stock market goes down, spectacularly at times.
In 2007, I received a call from a friend of mine who was an SVP at Countrywide, the residential lender. We live four blocks apart in a very nice, upscale neighborhood. He said, “Mick, if you intend to sell your residence at any point during the next three years, do it today. I mean, literally, today.”
I asked why and he said “You know that house on the corner of X and Y, right between our two houses? It is owned by a house painter.” I said “You mean a painting contractor right? A guy with thirty painters?” He said “No…I mean a house painter. And not only does he own that house, he owns a condo in Mt. View and a ranch in Gridley.”
I couldn’t believe it, said so, and he said “Have you heard of liar loans?” I said “sure, low document loans, basically you state your income. Nobody wants them because you need 20% down, a 740 FICO and you pay two hundred basis points over market.” He replied “That’s the way it used to be. What if I were to tell you that you only need 5% down and you could borrow 3% of that? And you need just a 640 FICO and the loan was at market rate?”
I was shocked. “But that would be a disas–” and he let it sink in. I had seven figures of equity in my house. Lost all of it in the ensuing two years. After my convo with my friend, I begged Mrs. Mick to sell, she wouldn’t hear of it. Made it back, but still…
Laurie sounds awful, but in a DEI awful way.
You got that right. But as awful as she sounds, the real capper is her stance on taxes. She’s at the age and level where her compensation is substantial, both in gross income terms and in total compensation, per transparentcalifornia.com, she has averaged $300k annually for the last three years.
Her position on taxes is that she shouldn’t have to pay them because she doesn’t like how they are being used (remember, she’s former U. S. Army). Difficult to walk that Socialist/Republican line, I imagine.
Academics, including professors at the Stanford University School of Education (SUSE), have done a lot to damage the college readiness of American kids (particularly Californians).
I am very close to a SUSE (pronounced “Suzy”) PhD who is a diehard, committed Socialist and has so many personal challenges that she just can’t understand normal thinking. Quite literally the worst person I have ever met face to face, described in this Substack, if you are interested:
I wouldn’t leave my kids alone with her for five minutes. For quite some time, she was in charge of selecting books for secondary schools in a very large public school district.
Frankly, I’m not sure how she got into SUSE. She didn’t graduate from high school, scored on the 48th percentile on the math portion of the CBEST. She did undergrad work at a midlevel UC, has a correspondence Master’s from some school in Vermont, but she’s a lesbian registered Democrat civil servant (check, check aaaaand check), so after an interview with the department chair, she was accepted and started to wreak havoc molding young minds. Happily, she’s near retirement age.
Hard to see him win. Not a very likeable guy, as his failed presidential run indicated. It’s a very crowded field of experienced Democratic politicians with existing and deep support bases, his initial polling numbers are very poor (1% to 3%), he’s never held elective office, he’s a billionaire trying to buy a job supervising actual humans, voter fatigue with celebrity candidates, he has no governmental track record, and he has three real problems:
- At best, his messages overlap those of the other candidates.
- His key strong points (environment, climate, corporate justice) are secondary concerns in California right now. Most Californians are interested in a strong economy, low inflation, more affordable lives, public safety, low-cost energy, good schools and reduced homelessness. There’s no real reason to vote for him.
- He needs to build a support team from scratch when other experienced staff has already committed to other candidates.
