Proposition 40, which will be on the ballot in November, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on California’s 200 billionaires,

These fucks will do anything to avoid paying taxes…

with 90% of the revenue from the proposed measure going toward the state’s health care program and 10% going toward education, food assistance, and administration. Brin, with a net worth of nearly $260 billion, could owe about $13 billion as a result of the tax.

Can’t be contributing to “socialism” I guess? Get some of that $260 billion liquid and pay up, dickhead.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Okay, just a couple of details here I’d like to put out in the open.

    First and foremost, I don’t like billionaires. I think they should all have their wealth stripped down until they’re under a billion dollars. There is no reason why billionaires should exist. That’s such an incredibly large number that our human brains don’t even really understand the difference between a million, 100 million, and a billion. It’s visually difficult to even represent. So as far as I’m concerned, the sooner these guys can get their wealth back down to a more reasonable level, the better it is for the world in general.

    Second, I really like Proposition 40. It’s got some real teeth to it. The proposition doesn’t simply charge taxes on revenue that a billionaire produces; it charges the tax against their net worth, which I think is absolutely fantastic because it actually targets accumulated wealth.

    And that’s important because billionaires don’t have billions of dollars sitting around in a checking account. They may have significantly less than even a billion dollars in liquid cash. If Mr. Sergey Brin is worth $250 billion, for example, a 5% wealth tax would represent roughly $12.5 billion. He’s going to have to come up with that money somehow. He can cash out assets, borrow against them, sell investments, or use other sources of liquidity. The proposition also provides for payment over a period of up to five years, although doing so comes with additional charges.

    That’s going to be a real interruption for billionaires, and I absolutely love that aspect of it. These people have accumulated enormous amounts of wealth while the rest of us live in an economy where ordinary people are taxed on their income, their purchases, their property, and virtually everything else they do.

    For decades, America’s tax system has allowed enormous fortunes to accumulate largely through appreciating assets rather than ordinary taxable income. Billionaires can therefore become dramatically wealthier without necessarily realizing that wealth as conventional income.

    Good on California for proposing a tax on extreme wealth that actually has the potential to put a dent in those fortunes.

    Mind you, these billionaires are ultimately trying to avoid what amounts to superficial damage to their coffers. Five percent of a $250 billion fortune is still an enormous amount of money, but it leaves $237.5 billion behind. And if their assets continue appreciating, they can potentially recover that lost wealth relatively quickly.

    I’m not saying 5% is going to destroy these people. It won’t. But that’s exactly why I think it’s a good step. It’s a real tax on accumulated wealth, it actually requires the ultra-wealthy to part with a meaningful amount of money, and it demonstrates that enormous fortunes aren’t necessarily untouchable simply because the wealth isn’t sitting in a bank account.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This is treating a symptom and not the cause.

    Assets will be kept elsewhere; it’s an inconvenience, but not solving the fundamental problem.

    All corporate entities must have employee ownership. Only government can enforce this, the shareholders and board won’t willingly share any assets, they will always fight for the closest thing to slavery that they can get, they will fight to the last penny.

    Corporations would still move most assets overseas, but at least some of the earnings can be redistributed when they do business in your state.

    (See Panama and Pandora papers for more details on international tax evasion, which will always be an option, as there is always a country eager to make hundreds of billions)

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Even 5% per year sounds pretty reasonable, honestly.

    If you are a billionaire within a lifetime, then the yearly growth of your assets has been so insane that a 5% headwind should not scare you, you big crybaby.

    Or if you inherited it and don’t have a rapidly growth net worth… cry me a river.

    • pomp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I came here from reddit recently and find this kind of content refreshing.

      It reflects the will of people, but gets you perma banned on reddit if you even hint at it

        • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Please refer to lemmy.ca instance rule #2 re: civility

          Argue in good faith, attack the argument; not the person, and promote a healthy debate. That includes implying violence, threats or wishes of violence and/or death.

          • myyass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I think that threats are one thing and close to implying violence. But wishes of violence are like dreams. Like I wish I had a R34 GTR but that’s just a dream.

            The plumbing work, someone has to dispose of the shit of a clogged toilet, of Mario’s brother was widely celebrated. I would say it was in good faith. Or shall we argue in good faith about WW2?

  • Gpennyhigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    There is enough for all, the scarcity is fake and controlled by the wealthy, to maintain their place at the top, in this punching down system they invented. Read a summary of Democracy In Chains to learn more and all the propaganda they used to fool the public for decades with coordinated lies and distraction to keep their wealth and prejudice safe.

    If this wins and not struck down or delayed for ages, it’s supposed to bring income over five years with delayed payments so they can sell stuff lol.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    15 hours ago

    A one-time money infusion is terrible policy. I support it because taxes should be re-distributive, but there is no way to budget a sustainable social policy that way. If the tax policy was more progressive and most importantly assessed annually (and nationally) it would be a huge win.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Could we just vote on it every year? Then it might be more resistant to corruption. Certainly not gratis and not perfect, though.

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It is amazing the amount of money and effort Billionaires put into avoiding paying taxes. They aren’t hated enough.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I dont care how many billions he’s gonna lose

    It’s literally a one-time 5% tax.

    The more money they scream they’re gonna lose the more I can see them afford to pay

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Imaginary money. By this point, their only still a hpper class because the pedestal under them hasn’t collapsed.

      • myyass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is the point we’ve reached. It may as well be monopoly money. A billionaire trapped in a burning car; meh good luck, not my problem, hope EMS makes it in time. I’ll rephrase it this way; car accident, I will go help whoever is in the 90’s corolla while whoever in the Bentley can get bent.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Well, he seemingly scraped together 102 million in real money to avoid paying even more, so I assume it’s real enough.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Do they all just have the most generally punchable faces? Or do their faces just become our idea of what is punchable?

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 day ago

    God I fucking hate the rich. He’s spending thousands of times my yearly pay just to avoid paying less in taxes than I do

  • TeaWithDani@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s just 5% of his wealth. Most people give anything from 20% to 50% of their annual income to taxes and will pay income taxes on all their retirement savings when they pull it.

    • Leon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’d gladly pay 5% of my total wealth once in lieu of taxes. It’d amount to about $50. Granted all of society would grind to a fucking half if us workers weren’t paying taxes because the other leeches fucking aren’t.