Why $1bn? Is that $1bn in cash? Cash plus rare gems, excluding Sierra gold nuggets? Equities plus commercial real estate over 10 floors tall? What makes 1% a good threshold? Why not 4? Why not tax all assets on a recurring basis? Do California taxpayers still trust their government will properly and responsibly spend a $100bn tax windfall? What happens when that is spent and deficits return? Another “one time tax” on multimillionaires?
Just making a point about the poor handling of existing tax income and spending discipline, as well as the very arbitrary nature of these tax-seeking initiatives.
froonly•1mo ago
California should do something similar to what Massachusetts did & implement a state income surtax of 5% for those making over $2M/yr.
That way, there's no arguing about net worth, etc...
Before we try to take more tax money, we should stop current tax dollars from being used for fraud. I was horrified to read that my Washington state tax dollars are going to pay $90,000 to fake businesses https://x.com/i/trending/2005454604394222016
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
Hell, make it revenue neutral—use it to cut everyone else’s taxes by a per-capita amount. (About $875/voter/year [1].)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_...
blowsand•1mo ago
Just making a point about the poor handling of existing tax income and spending discipline, as well as the very arbitrary nature of these tax-seeking initiatives.