They did a really good job on ads. Don’t look up how much they spent just on fooling the population.
Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.
Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
I saw ads being run claiming they would take your 401k from you. Total bull but it worked.
Those were the worst
Is it bullshit though? This exact proposal, sure. But every other tax that was initially applied only to the wealthy eventually expanded to hit the entire population. Look at income taxes. They applied initially only to the ultra wealthy. Why should wealth taxes be any different? It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you can point to actual historical examples of a very thing happening.
Yes.
You're letting partisanship blind your reason. The income tax in the US originally 1% on incomes over $3000 and 7% on incomes over $500,000. That would be like a 1% income applied to incomes over $100k and 7% applied to incomes over $16 million.
The US federal income tax was indeed initially something only applied to the very wealthy. The upper middle class paid a nominal 1% income tax, but only the truly wealthy had to pay substantial income tax. It expanded over time to hit the entire population.
So no, it's not bullshit. Taxes expand over time. I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy, but I also try not to let my personal biases cloud my reason. I suggest you do the same.
Then you intervene at the point where it is about to happen, not when it might one day maybe happen.
Historically that intervention hasn't worked out is their point.
That is some crap that is convenient for the billionaires, we can't possibly implement any progressive tax strategy lest it degrades from a progressive tax strategy.
I'll admit the law is a slog of a read, but it is pretty clearly scoped to one time and requiring over a billion in assets. There's no open door for expanding it to broader set of people. The folks bemoaning that it's unclear on what counts as an "asset"... That point doesn't matter because the common voter doesn't have any asset that could be in that class...
Honestly I'm hoping for widespread tax resistance, which is hard if you own a factory and easy if you have nothing.