California should first tighten spending, first prove that you are spending our hard earned dollars very effectively before you ask for more. Otherwise you are just grabbing money to cover your own lack of discipline.
People just didn’t want to tax the billionaires in case they themselves might someday become a billionaire. Ha.
I kind of hoped it would pass just to see the reaction even if the policy was weak. How many people would’ve actually moved? What creative destruction might it have unleashed?
I'm a Silicon Valley engineer and former Republican and I support a wealth tax. I voted for this one and would likely vote for similar measures in the future. Why? The r>g dynamics [1] of current economic inequality are not stable. Absent things like a wealth tax economic inequality will continue to grow, inducing political instability.
BTW, a wealth tax can be implemented alongside credits for low-income people in such a way as to not generate any new revenue. I'm in favor of such mechanisms as a way to move more people into the middle class
It was an extreme long shot, IMO. There was a ton of money for ads, with the usual distortions, and props 41 and 42 both would counter it, so 40 had to pass and 41 and 42 (advertised as "bad for Joe Lunchbucket") would have had to lose.
Never underestimate the power of money. Propositions in the past banned same-sex marriages (found unconstitutional) and gave us Proposition 13, the tax on people who buy and sell properties, which surprise! includes almost everyone but established factories, warehouses, farms, and wineries and so on.
California should first tighten spending, first prove that you are spending our hard earned dollars very effectively before you ask for more. Otherwise you are just grabbing money to cover your own lack of discipline.
We have spoken.
We approved a bunch of other spending bills so?
People just didn’t want to tax the billionaires in case they themselves might someday become a billionaire. Ha.
I kind of hoped it would pass just to see the reaction even if the policy was weak. How many people would’ve actually moved? What creative destruction might it have unleashed?
Approving spending bills is not contradictory.
I'm a Silicon Valley engineer and former Republican and I support a wealth tax. I voted for this one and would likely vote for similar measures in the future. Why? The r>g dynamics [1] of current economic inequality are not stable. Absent things like a wealth tax economic inequality will continue to grow, inducing political instability.
BTW, a wealth tax can be implemented alongside credits for low-income people in such a way as to not generate any new revenue. I'm in favor of such mechanisms as a way to move more people into the middle class
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
Last I checked 42 is gonna pass so it won’t ever happen now?
Agreed with r>g but most of the politicians are bought? Look at Xavier’s donor list…
It was an extreme long shot, IMO. There was a ton of money for ads, with the usual distortions, and props 41 and 42 both would counter it, so 40 had to pass and 41 and 42 (advertised as "bad for Joe Lunchbucket") would have had to lose.
Never underestimate the power of money. Propositions in the past banned same-sex marriages (found unconstitutional) and gave us Proposition 13, the tax on people who buy and sell properties, which surprise! includes almost everyone but established factories, warehouses, farms, and wineries and so on.
[dead]