"Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook," argues the Billionaire Tax Now campaign as it seeks to counter "5 tricks" being deployed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies.
What do you MEAN he DOESNT want to? He SAID he did and that’s WAY MORE PROOF then him LITERALLY trying to BLOCK Legislation in his State to Tax Billionaires!
Nah, it’s because he can safely back a national tax because it’s out of his control and if he did run for president he can use that as a campaign point, and then, if elected, he can claim it’s just too hard.
This billionaire has a good intern clapping back on social media but he is absolutely and establishment democrat who wants to accomplish nothing.
His proposal is basically just to tax income at a higher rate on people who have a billion dollars of wealth, which is not a wealth tax, it’s an income tax.
Which is meaningless because people with a billion dollars in wealth don’t really take taxable incomes, they take out loans against assets, or dump enough money in to a money loosing enterprise to counter the income they take from their assets, or they donate all their income to a “charity” which they’re on the board of and basically pays for their lifestyle. Or a million other things you can get away with assuming you have enough money to higher a good tax dodge specialist. Says he wants to patch those loop holes, but there will always be more.
The whole point of a wealth tax is that it’s supposed to create a passive downward pressure on their accumulation of wealth, which income tax doesn’t do, because people don’t build wealth through income, they build wealth through assets.
That’s what they said about Massachusetts’ “millionaire’s tax” - a 4% additional income tax on household income above 1 million dollars. And despite what finance rags claim, the data says that between when the tax was voted into law in 2022 and 2024, the number of Mass residents with at least $50 million in total wealth grew 35.2% from 1,954 people to 2,642 people. And the tax brought in an extra $2.46 billion in tax revenue during its first year.
So despite all the crying, the data says that they won’t leave. We’ve seen it happen multiple times across the country over the years. A state or a city enacts a new tax on the wealthy, the wealthy threaten to leave and cry bloody murder, and nothing happens except an increase in tax revenue to be invested back into the area.
So that’s a talking point, right? Based off a decent chain of thoughts somewhere, i’m just not sure they were yours.
I studied microeconomics. Now i’m not going to say i’m great at it, but it is the use of charts and graphs and equations to determine and explain why people do things. Why people are That Way. Y’know? The math part was easy, the conceptualization, well. That’s where people argue in economics anyways.
So here’s why a one-time wealth tax on billionaires wouldn’t make them move. They gain a lot by being in California and expect to gain further by remaining in California. A single, one-time tax of $5million on someone who has $1billion in wealth1 is not that much. It’s doubtful they have that many liquid assets, but it is very not hard to get. And their expectations of future gain should theoretically not change because all that’s changing is this one time tax. According to the econ bullshit i learned, those one time shocks don’t cause behavior change but the long-term revenue and cost streams do. This of course assumes the one lie we all know to be false, that people are what the economics field defines as rational.
1i haven’t looked into how the FTB is determining wealth. precisely like how the IRS defines income, they use funny words to make “unexpected” outcomes happen. Like, don’t get me started on malls and depreciation (i’m sure someone can explain that whole bullshit better than me but it’s NEAT)
Not to harp on here, but the other comments didn’t talk as much about the billionaires/corporations fleeing the state part that you brought up.
Realistically, most companies are not leaving California in general because they lose access to one of the biggest economies globally if they do. These companies print money hand over fist for the board of directors and owners.
Many companies will just eat whatever tax since if they leave the state, they lose marketshare and revenue. If the owners themselves leave the state, they’re still paying taxes on what’s generated in the state.
People and businesses located in California buy goods and services, and produce goods and services that are sold both in the local region and abroad. This exchange of goods and services is frequently called an “economy”.
The economic activity within the state of California would make it the 4th largest economy in the world if it were an independent country, and it is the largest subregional economy in the world.
It’s not exclusive (in the sense that no economy in the U.S. is totally isolated) and companies relocate to Texas frequently. But there is a huge advantage to having physical proximity to the largest customer base in America and the tax credits that you can get for specific items and services.
Also California is one of those American cornerstones of worldwide and domestic mythology. It occupies a conceptual and environmentally appealing aspect of people’s minds and is a highly sought out destination. And Texas really doesn’t have the same sheen to it.
I see, so you understand that an economy exists, but not that it has many different interlocking pieces that can be examined in different ways. Let me see if I can break it down for you:
When you spend money at the store, when the store pays its employees, or when it buys goods from other vendors, are all examples of what is often referred to as “economic activity”. This can take many different forms at many different scales, in much the same way that a walk around the block is not considered an international flight.
For example, you go to the store and purchase a head of lettuce to make a salad. The store buys that lettuce from a local vendor who gets it from a local farm. That entire chain of transactions would be considered part of the “local economy”.
The fact that the US buys more than half of its aluminum from Canada would be considered “international economics” as the transactions involved take place between two different countries. In this way, you can examine different economics from as small a scale as you buying eggs from your neighbor who has chickens to the macro-economics of multinational corporations dictating the stupid price of RAM by effectively buying goods that don’t exist with money that doesn’t exist while handing the same 20 dollars back and forth to inflate their stock value to a disgusting degree. Hell, you can even pick out specific sectors, like with the aluminum example: when Trump started his pissing contest with Canada with tariffs, the American car manufacturing industry said that tariffs on aluminum would cause them to shut down plants within 6 weeks.
So when we talk about the economy of California, people are talking about the farms, the restaurants, the businesses that exist in the state. The people who work and live there, and the money that flows between them all. If these companies were to pull out of California, they’d be leaving all of that behind. Even ignoring the idea of the loss of sales, they’d also be losing the experience and skill of the people that they employ in the state, and the “value” of the property that they have there - whether that’s real estate or more logistics based like renting storage for goods or the cost of transportation from a manufacturing facility in a new location.
The people. People makeup an economy and are the primary driving force. Also the cashflow of those people. If big businesses want to make more money then they will want to be doing business with Californians.
My guy, let’s drop the snark for a minute here if we’re having a dialogue. You know we’re talking about Californians and business in California.
Not everyone lives in California, but based on the context of the conversation of California’s economy, then businesses doing business with Californians are subject to California law and California taxes. If Amazon wants to sell to people in California then they have to play ball by California’s rules for instance.
You know we’re talking about Californians and business in California.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, sorry. Some vague mention of “people” and nothing to do with the California economy or why billionaires can’t engage with it from outside of California.
Amazon wants to sell to people in California then they have to play ball by California’s rules for instance.
We’re not discussing Amazon or any other company, we’re discussing billionaires. Bozos can easily move his primary residence to Texas or Colorado and pay his taxes accordingly, and Amazon can continue doing 100% of the things they’re already doing.
Can you help direct me towards where you would like further clarification specifically? It sounds like you are confused about how the people of California is related to the economy of California. It also sounds like you’re not sure how billionaires’ businesses are tied to wealth or established businesses in California.
Amazon was just an example for the context of the conversation for how billionaires’ businesses would still want/need to play by California rules to do business in California.
Billionaires are not inherently separate from their companies. That much I want to lay out front and center here at the start. Bezos can easily move his residence to Texas or Colorado and pay taxes for the business he has in Texas or Colorado. He still owes income taxes to each state he personally does business in.
Now, Bezos might not tie a lot of business to his personal name so his own personal income taxes are probably not showing up as if it’s through multiple states. But Amazon itself is paying taxes based on where it conducts business. Amazon the company rubber stamps a paycheck and stock package to Bezos, of which he’s paying state and federal taxes based on where he lives for his paycheck. If his permanent residence is in a state where there is not state income taxes then his personal income tax statement would not be as high as if he had it paid out in Washington or California.
What do you MEAN he DOESNT want to? He SAID he did and that’s WAY MORE PROOF then him LITERALLY trying to BLOCK Legislation in his State to Tax Billionaires!
He wants to tax them at the national level. Taxing them at the state level accomplishes nothing except running them out of the state.
Nah, it’s because he can safely back a national tax because it’s out of his control and if he did run for president he can use that as a campaign point, and then, if elected, he can claim it’s just too hard.
This billionaire has a good intern clapping back on social media but he is absolutely and establishment democrat who wants to accomplish nothing.
His proposal is basically just to tax income at a higher rate on people who have a billion dollars of wealth, which is not a wealth tax, it’s an income tax.
Which is meaningless because people with a billion dollars in wealth don’t really take taxable incomes, they take out loans against assets, or dump enough money in to a money loosing enterprise to counter the income they take from their assets, or they donate all their income to a “charity” which they’re on the board of and basically pays for their lifestyle. Or a million other things you can get away with assuming you have enough money to higher a good tax dodge specialist. Says he wants to patch those loop holes, but there will always be more.
The whole point of a wealth tax is that it’s supposed to create a passive downward pressure on their accumulation of wealth, which income tax doesn’t do, because people don’t build wealth through income, they build wealth through assets.
That’s what they said about Massachusetts’ “millionaire’s tax” - a 4% additional income tax on household income above 1 million dollars. And despite what finance rags claim, the data says that between when the tax was voted into law in 2022 and 2024, the number of Mass residents with at least $50 million in total wealth grew 35.2% from 1,954 people to 2,642 people. And the tax brought in an extra $2.46 billion in tax revenue during its first year.
So despite all the crying, the data says that they won’t leave. We’ve seen it happen multiple times across the country over the years. A state or a city enacts a new tax on the wealthy, the wealthy threaten to leave and cry bloody murder, and nothing happens except an increase in tax revenue to be invested back into the area.
So that’s a talking point, right? Based off a decent chain of thoughts somewhere, i’m just not sure they were yours.
I studied microeconomics. Now i’m not going to say i’m great at it, but it is the use of charts and graphs and equations to determine and explain why people do things. Why people are That Way. Y’know? The math part was easy, the conceptualization, well. That’s where people argue in economics anyways.
So here’s why a one-time wealth tax on billionaires wouldn’t make them move. They gain a lot by being in California and expect to gain further by remaining in California. A single, one-time tax of $5million on someone who has $1billion in wealth1 is not that much. It’s doubtful they have that many liquid assets, but it is very not hard to get. And their expectations of future gain should theoretically not change because all that’s changing is this one time tax. According to the econ bullshit i learned, those one time shocks don’t cause behavior change but the long-term revenue and cost streams do. This of course assumes the one lie we all know to be false, that people are what the economics field defines as rational.
1i haven’t looked into how the FTB is determining wealth. precisely like how the IRS defines income, they use funny words to make “unexpected” outcomes happen. Like, don’t get me started on malls and depreciation (i’m sure someone can explain that whole bullshit better than me but it’s NEAT)
Not to harp on here, but the other comments didn’t talk as much about the billionaires/corporations fleeing the state part that you brought up.
Realistically, most companies are not leaving California in general because they lose access to one of the biggest economies globally if they do. These companies print money hand over fist for the board of directors and owners.
Many companies will just eat whatever tax since if they leave the state, they lose marketshare and revenue. If the owners themselves leave the state, they’re still paying taxes on what’s generated in the state.
What “economy” are you referring to that’s exclusive to California?
People and businesses located in California buy goods and services, and produce goods and services that are sold both in the local region and abroad. This exchange of goods and services is frequently called an “economy”.
The economic activity within the state of California would make it the 4th largest economy in the world if it were an independent country, and it is the largest subregional economy in the world.
I know what an economy is. I asked what economy is exclusive to California.
And I told you. California’s. It’s only like the biggest state economy in the United States.
Being big does not make it exclusive. You can move to Texas and still buy and sell all the things in California.
It’s not exclusive (in the sense that no economy in the U.S. is totally isolated) and companies relocate to Texas frequently. But there is a huge advantage to having physical proximity to the largest customer base in America and the tax credits that you can get for specific items and services.
Also California is one of those American cornerstones of worldwide and domestic mythology. It occupies a conceptual and environmentally appealing aspect of people’s minds and is a highly sought out destination. And Texas really doesn’t have the same sheen to it.
What economy is exclusive to the United States?
None. Next question?
I see, so you understand that an economy exists, but not that it has many different interlocking pieces that can be examined in different ways. Let me see if I can break it down for you:
When you spend money at the store, when the store pays its employees, or when it buys goods from other vendors, are all examples of what is often referred to as “economic activity”. This can take many different forms at many different scales, in much the same way that a walk around the block is not considered an international flight.
For example, you go to the store and purchase a head of lettuce to make a salad. The store buys that lettuce from a local vendor who gets it from a local farm. That entire chain of transactions would be considered part of the “local economy”.
The fact that the US buys more than half of its aluminum from Canada would be considered “international economics” as the transactions involved take place between two different countries. In this way, you can examine different economics from as small a scale as you buying eggs from your neighbor who has chickens to the macro-economics of multinational corporations dictating the stupid price of RAM by effectively buying goods that don’t exist with money that doesn’t exist while handing the same 20 dollars back and forth to inflate their stock value to a disgusting degree. Hell, you can even pick out specific sectors, like with the aluminum example: when Trump started his pissing contest with Canada with tariffs, the American car manufacturing industry said that tariffs on aluminum would cause them to shut down plants within 6 weeks.
So when we talk about the economy of California, people are talking about the farms, the restaurants, the businesses that exist in the state. The people who work and live there, and the money that flows between them all. If these companies were to pull out of California, they’d be leaving all of that behind. Even ignoring the idea of the loss of sales, they’d also be losing the experience and skill of the people that they employ in the state, and the “value” of the property that they have there - whether that’s real estate or more logistics based like renting storage for goods or the cost of transportation from a manufacturing facility in a new location.
The people. People makeup an economy and are the primary driving force. Also the cashflow of those people. If big businesses want to make more money then they will want to be doing business with Californians.
TIL people only exist in California and also can’t do business with California outside of California.
My guy, let’s drop the snark for a minute here if we’re having a dialogue. You know we’re talking about Californians and business in California.
Not everyone lives in California, but based on the context of the conversation of California’s economy, then businesses doing business with Californians are subject to California law and California taxes. If Amazon wants to sell to people in California then they have to play ball by California’s rules for instance.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, sorry. Some vague mention of “people” and nothing to do with the California economy or why billionaires can’t engage with it from outside of California.
We’re not discussing Amazon or any other company, we’re discussing billionaires. Bozos can easily move his primary residence to Texas or Colorado and pay his taxes accordingly, and Amazon can continue doing 100% of the things they’re already doing.
Can you help direct me towards where you would like further clarification specifically? It sounds like you are confused about how the people of California is related to the economy of California. It also sounds like you’re not sure how billionaires’ businesses are tied to wealth or established businesses in California.
Amazon was just an example for the context of the conversation for how billionaires’ businesses would still want/need to play by California rules to do business in California.
Billionaires are not inherently separate from their companies. That much I want to lay out front and center here at the start. Bezos can easily move his residence to Texas or Colorado and pay taxes for the business he has in Texas or Colorado. He still owes income taxes to each state he personally does business in.
Now, Bezos might not tie a lot of business to his personal name so his own personal income taxes are probably not showing up as if it’s through multiple states. But Amazon itself is paying taxes based on where it conducts business. Amazon the company rubber stamps a paycheck and stock package to Bezos, of which he’s paying state and federal taxes based on where he lives for his paycheck. If his permanent residence is in a state where there is not state income taxes then his personal income tax statement would not be as high as if he had it paid out in Washington or California.
California’s it seems like.