California’s billionaire tax, explained

(sfstandard.com)

10 points | by donsupreme 6 hours ago

3 comments

  • froonly 1 hour 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...

    https://www.mass.gov/news/4-surtax-on-taxable-income-the-bas...

  • silexia 27 minutes ago
    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 5 hours ago
    Why one time? Why not a 1% wealth tax on over $1bn?

    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 4 hours ago
      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.