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:
It is absolutely a fallacy to say we can't possibly levy a tax on a billionaire lest it, ultimately becomes a tax on us.
Already they have a pretty sweet deal compared to most folks, most folks have most of their 'wealth' taxed as property. Since real property is a tiny sliver of their 'wealth', they get to keep more percentage wise than the random person, despite needing it less.
To say any tax might evolve into a tax on the common man is like saying we can't regulate nuclear weapons, lest it becomes a regulation preventing people from having scissors. Yes, there is the example of income tax and a mistake was made at the time they went to expand it. The problem was not the initial tax, it was the point of expansion. There's no reason the expansion of the tax should have any lower barrier than getting it levied in the first place.
Now if you argue that the measure was somehow flawed in that it failed to limit the scope and explicitly opened the door to things, but it was the opposite, a one-time, billionaire only scoped event.