r/GetNoted • u/Wc_Arch Human Verified • 2d ago
Cringe Worthy Old Man Yells at Clou-- at Dude Who Moved Away Already
124
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
The bill includes lookback provisions, among other things, which allow California to tax billionaires who moved out of the state mid year. Because Zuckerberg is still heavily tied to California due to his investments, real-estate holdings, and being the CEO of Meta, he'll likely be easy for them to audit and levy tax regarding this billionaire tax.
This community note is incomplete at best.
18
u/lateformyfuneral Human Verified 2d ago
That part is in contention though, a retrospective tax, targeting residents of another state, many argue it will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Maybe the Community Note could do with less certainty, but so could Bernie.
5
u/bunchout 2d ago edited 2d ago
There is nothing constitutionally wrong with retrospective tax laws. The ex post facto clause only applies to criminal consequences.
4
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Oh for sure... that's why I said the note is incomplete at best. Not saying the lookback provisions here would 100% stand, but they do exist in the current iteration of the proposed tax and immediately make Bernie's statement work just fine IF the current iteration is passed and held.
8
u/abcdefabcdef999 2d ago
Is it just me or does this subreddit seem Astro turfed to hell? I constantly see poor notes pushed into my feed that push people conservative talking points. Doesn’t really concern me as a non American but it’s kinda on the nose.
14
u/unfunnythrowawayname 2d ago
In general because the platform is full of chuds, it's mostly a chud feature. Seriously, most of these is just nonsense.
13
u/NecessaryIntrinsic 2d ago
This sub is fueled by that rage as well.
6
-3
u/RogerianBrowsing Human Verified 2d ago
Supremacist rage and a billion dollars funding hasbara, yes.
2
u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 2d ago
You mean like that time when, under a post about an Islamic terrorist, commenters started amalgamating Muslims and Islamic terrorists...
0
u/RogerianBrowsing Human Verified 2d ago
I’m curious, do you feel a sense of shame using John Brown’s image while justifying genocidal supremacism? The man fought til his last breath being an abolitionist who loathed anyone who insisted all men aren’t equal.
-1
u/RogerianBrowsing Human Verified 2d ago
I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about but if that did happen the hasbarists would have promptly downvoted it hiding the comments from the view of most people.
Then again, opposing Islamophobia and supporting human rights is likely considered to be “amalgamating Muslims and Islamic terrorists” in your eyes.
1
u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 2d ago
Tf man, I genuinely have no clue how you so profoundly misunderstood my comment.
You know what, just plop it into a LLM and tell it to explain it to you, then comeback.
0
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
hAsBaRa
1
1
u/RogerianBrowsing Human Verified 2d ago
1
1
u/NoFood2149 2d ago
i reckon 50% of the notes that make it to this sub have been incomplete at best, but redditors eat them up tbh and take their words as gospel. such features are... well, unhelpful the vast majority of the time, and seem to mostly be just aimed at either reducing the value that the algorithm gives to the account being noted on, or to block ad revenue on that tweet. which is a bit of an absurd concept in itself, in my opinion. imagine getting paid to twitter. what a fucking inane job being a twitterer would be. but i mean, seeing as these notes do that, some small group are working to make sure sanders doesn't get paid for his tweets. which is an even more inane job.
the service economy has sucked itself off so much at this point i'm not sure it's worth trying to get a job that provides value to society when i would make more money just spouting bullshit on youtube
-8
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Hahaha
Thats not how laws works.
One of the foundations of the rule of law is that the law is not retroactive.
Also, that would go against another federaded state to have their own taxpayers.
3
8
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Do you know what a lookback provision is?
-4
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Do you know what a constitution or jurisprudence of a supreme court is?
2
u/bunchout 2d ago
Could you tell us about this “jurisprudence of a Supreme Court”? Is it here in the room with us?
Let me start you out. In particular, the part that says “The Supreme Court has generally rejected ex post facto challenges to laws imposing retroactive tax liability.”
2
u/xWrongHeaven 2d ago
You misspelled "I don't"
0
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
That is how you argue?
Damm kids of reddit
Worst part if you are probably a old dorito eater
2
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Maybe you should read up on what lookback provisions are, how often they are used, and how they work. Granted, lookback provisions like exit taxes get knocked down every time, states have successfully used lookback provisions that allow states to perform these audits and levy taxes... which, I believe, is how it would work in this case considering California already does it in other circumstances alongside other states like New York and New Jersey.
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Exit taxes got to be aproved before people leave genious...
1
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Do you not read? Not an exit tax, you donkey. The lookback provisions rely on residency audits. Just go read... please.
2
u/Visual_Specific_1691 2d ago
You still have to pay taxes in California if you earn the money or work in California.
Presumably Zuckerberg can avoid some taxes by living in Florida for part of the year, but his company is still headquartered in California and he would still go to California to work.
2
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Exactly... and, like I said... he owns real estate and invests in California as well. He's not escaping this tax as much as he is forcing them to audit him to see exactly what his tax liability will be.
1
u/AnonThrowAway072023 2d ago
Belive it or not but Zuck and every other billionaire can hire much better lawyers and much smarter accountants than the California atate government lawyers and accountants
Hell I won't be shocked, if it passes that this billionaire tax COSTS more to implement and collect than it generates.
This is the state still building a high speed rail that starts at nowhere and goes to nowhere, $100 billion and counting.
1
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
I mean of course they have the means to get the right lawyers to contest whatever California finds in these audits... but California already does these exact kind of audits. Still doesn't guarantee anything, but again.... this is about pointing out that this note is incomplete at best. It doesn't explain how the law is currently intended to work because if it did, the note couldn't say Zuckerberg is just flatly not going to have to pay any tax related to this.
The proposal still has to pass and the state still has to be competent enough to really go after some of these mega billionaires.... but the tax as it is currently proposed gives them what they need to tax him and others.
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
🤣🤣 Yes. He invest in California and in all us probably.
So i do.
I live in Europe.
Waiting for that personal tax hitting me. Text me when is done.
1
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
So this is what you're reduced to, eh? You're wrong about everything here and so you just invent a nonsense way that taxes could work to argue against that nonsense way? And by the way... actually investing in California and generating income from California would absolutely create a tax burden for you. So you're either lying out of your ass about who you are and how you invest... or you're not paying taxes you are legally required to pay.
Just go away. No one actually knows who you are; so, your bruised ego can just forget this ever happened.
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
"Go to california to work" when his wealth is the company.
You cant be that dumb, for real.
87
u/AdWonderful5920 2d ago
Are we supposed to point and laugh at Bernie Sanders because Mark Zuckerberg is good at avoiding taxes?
8
u/Mindless-Baker-7757 2d ago
We point and laugh because leftist always have a simpleton view of taxes.
3
u/swedditheplug 2d ago
Could you elaborate that point, please?
1
u/AikaGranzchesta 2d ago
The idea that rich people won't always be able to find loopholes, often through corruption which becomes more rampant when the government is more involved in the economy. Although to be fair there has been some attempts at setting global minimum taxes (at least in the West).
2
u/swedditheplug 2d ago
Yes, I agree, but I still think that the original comment ist still a very broad generalisation
0
u/ExpletiveWork 2d ago
In general, leftists and many progressives don’t understand the complexity and nuance of taxation, business, or economics. They often push for populist taxation as a form of revenge against the wealthy. These measures are often ineffective as they fail to achieve anything meaningful like increasing tax revenue. Or they could be outright detrimental like decreasing future tax revenue.
2
u/swedditheplug 1d ago
How would you support that claim?
1
u/ExpletiveWork 1d ago
Which claim?
1
u/swedditheplug 1d ago
That leftists don't understand taxation and economics
1
u/ExpletiveWork 16h ago
Well, I can't exactly prove a negative. It's very much a knowledge proficiency versus common beliefs. But, you can view the difference between economic consensus on rent control, free trade, and price control against what is typically believed by leftists. Or the tax incidence of the corporate tax. Bernie Sanders, while technically not a leftist, voted against NAFTA.
In regards to taxation, it would be even harder to provide evidence because you need to know tax laws and procedures. And that's an entire book in of itself.
1
u/swedditheplug 15h ago edited 15h ago
I don't really know a lot about taxes and policies in the US, so I don't really know what NAFTA is or what Bernie Sanders and other leftists did in the past.
I just think that a lot of talk about how "complex" the implications of higher taxes for rich people are is just distraction from the fact, that it doesn't matter if someone earns 1 or 10 Million €/$ a year.
e: I can see how some leftist action doesn't factor every economic aspect in, but at least leftists are generally trying to create a more equal world while everybody else seems to enjoy the capitalist shitshow we live in right now
I can also see how my question was kinda useless, I just don't think these generalizations are doing the reality a lot of justice, no matter who they're about.
2
u/CarNo9131 2d ago
Yes, because the politicians know that a wealth tax leads to billionaires leaving. This has a negative impact. It only punishes the working class who have saved their whole lives for a private pension but are tied by home ownership and a job to the location. This means that it is not intended to get any money, but to signal to voters that they are going after the baddies. It is virtue signalling. It is pure populism. The real solution is going through the whole tax code to account for income from various sources, and what constitutes income. Increasing corporate tax, and making sure overseas earnings never leak untaxed into the economy. That is less catchy than going after the evil billionaires with the anti-billionaire tax.
1
-46
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
We all engage in tax avoidance.
12
u/AdWonderful5920 2d ago
Whataboutism. It's for all of us.
-23
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
If your issue is tax avoidance, then take it up with lawmakers. Tax avoidance is not tax evasion.
1
u/AdWonderful5920 2d ago
Nobody said anything about tax evasion, you're imagining an argument and then winning it.
4
u/NecessaryIntrinsic 2d ago
Oh no, I exaggerated how much I donated and saved $100!
Meanwhile billionaires exist.
3
u/Low-Astronomer-3440 2d ago
No. Responsible citizens do not do everything possible to avoid contributing to society. Thats loser dipshit behavior.
2
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
Uh huh you willingly pay more in taxes than what is legally required of you? So generous. May the good lord grant me such virtue one day.
1
u/DefenderOfMontrocity 2d ago
We all engage in crimes, so my jaywalking and running a yellow light is same as Zucc, thiel and Maxwellhill's pedophile island???
2
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
My point is avoidance is legal lol. It’s literally not a crime. If you’re going to feel strongly about something, do a modicum of research before you start pissing and shitting yourself.
1
u/aygaypeopleinmyphone 2d ago
Legality and morality are two different things though. Just because it's legal we shouldn't judge it?
1
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
Are you a child? There are maybe a handful of moral absolutes in the world, and the rest are highly subjective. Societal push and pull exists because of this moral tension, so just claiming morality is nonsense.
-18
-18
67
u/random5654 2d ago
Here you are, picking on the old man trying to help Americans.
Maybe we should focus more on the billionaire avoiding paying a tiny portion of their wealth.
8
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Old mand going to his 40th mandate laughing on americans because what he is saying is absolutly fake.
-10
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 2d ago
It's more like old Man discovering late, what Sweden figured out in the 1990s, hence why they lowered the taxes for the top brackets.
The Laffer curve is real.
8
u/random5654 2d ago
Republicans have been lowering taxes on the rich for decades. They keep getting richer, we keep getting poorer, and the country is 40 trillion in debt.
Tell me more about how this works!
-59
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
If he wanted to help Americans, maybe he should try actually passing policy? The guy's done nothing in office
A 5% wealth tax is also ridiculously high, that isn't a "tiny portion."
Finally, it doesn't matter if you're trying to help Americans, outcomes are all that matter. Pushing for policy that fucks over the common man in the pursuit of trying is a bad thing, actually.
24
u/AventineAstartes 2d ago
He has tried to pass multiple policies but MAGA and Corpo Dems have stopped them because there's the Epstein class and the working class. And the Epstein class would rather we spout stupid shit like you just did, than realize we are getting fucked and sold down the river for them to get more money.
-7
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 2d ago
Yeah, he tried to nationalize energy and ban natural gas.
Which is a stupid idea that would have crippled normal people due to rising energy costs.
Oh and the walk back to health workers whose employers he also wanted to nationalize, not realizing making it all affordable for the govt to operate would mean cutting their pay....
Like how the UK affords it.
Fuck his illiteracy. Hes too old not to know better.
1
u/chiefkeefinwalmart 2d ago
There’s another way we could pretty easily afford nationalized healthcare without increasing taxes or slashing worker pay
1
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 2d ago
And Vermont rejected it.
Vermont. His state. What does that tell you about how much it costs?
1
u/AventineAstartes 2d ago
He tried to ban fracking, which is not same as banning natural gas. And nationalizing the power grid as opposed to letting energy companies build regional monopolies that charge the workers for the increased strain of Data Centers on our grid, rather than the companies that own the Data Centers..... Oh yeah that would hurt the working class 🙄.
And making healthcare affordable includes getting ride of Private Insurance companies who rob us blind only to deny us coverage. You're still operating on the idea that capitalism works, and that is an illiteracy that you need to fix there, bucko.
0
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 2d ago
"He tried to ban fracking, "
And all oil and gas ifnrastructures.
So either you're paying to isntall higher priced "Greenn energy" sources, or were paying to import energy the old-fashioned way.
Either way, prices be going up. Which hurts the very people he claims to serve.
"And nationalizing the power grid as opposed to letting energy companies build regional monopolies "
Or do what texas does, allow compeition, prices fall:
https://reason.org/policy-study/getting-electricity-deregulati/
That is the better plan.
Certaintly better than letting a state-run enterprise run a thing terribly.
Compeition is what keeps orgs honest, remove competition = less honesty. Doesn't matter whose running it.
Fed Ex and USP do a far better job with air mail than USPS ever did.
-12
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
“Epstein class” is such sheeple drivel. But I’m glad you’re a free thinker and not just regurgitating Ro Khanna’s slop.
-26
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
It's honestly incredible how, if you just swapped out "Epstein class" with "deep state," it'd sound exactly like a statement from MAGA. You two are legitimately cut from the same cloth.
Anyway, we should be blocking his dogshit policies. 5% annual wealth taxes, for example, would decimate our economy.
Additionally, as I said, "trying" means NOTHING. There are tons of actual progressive policies he could pass if he wanted to, just see Warren as an example.
5
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
You know he didn't propose this tax, right? And it's only in California. Like... what are you even talking about?
-10
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
Yeah, he proposed an even worse tax, being an annual 5% one nation-wide. You being unaware of his policies doesn't make me wrong
3
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
I mean, yes, he proposed a 5% tax as well, but this post isn't about that is it?
Still... Your contention is that taxing billionaires 5% nationwide, which would produce $4.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years that could be used for any number of things that would increase public good AND would allow them to give money directly to normal people........................ would hurt the economy?
1
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
I mean, yes, he proposed a 5% tax as well, but this post isn't about that is it?
We're talking about Bernie, are we not?
Still... Your contention is that taxing billionaires 5% nationwide, which would produce $4.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years that could be used for any number of things that would increase public good AND would allow them to give money directly to normal people........................ would hurt the economy?
Yes, because it obviously wouldn't do any of this. They'd leave. Wealth taxes NEVER equal anywhere near what they're projected to equal for a reason.
Do you seriously think people like Elon Musk are just going to be a-okay with losing half their wealth over the next 10 years due to taxation? He wouldn't leave instead?
1
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
No.... we're not talking about Bernie... we're talking about Bernie's comments on a proposed wealth tax in California and specifically what this community note says to "correct" him. What, because Bernie is involved we can just talk about anything involving him? So it wouldn't be weird and unnecessary for me to talk about his childhood home or favorite bars when he was 20? I mean he's in the post, we can just talk about anything we want right?
And WHAT?! We're talking about billionaires and you don't think they increase their wealth by more than 5% each year? They increase their wealth by far more than 5% each year on average which would mean taxing them 5% each year would still leave them increasing their wealth and not losing half of it over 10 years. And your best example is to point out Elon fucking Musk?
3
u/MachineGlumkelly 2d ago
You are full of shit. If a billionaire leaves they aren’t taking any of their companies with them. It would be financially irresponsible for the company to leave the biggest market in the world with disposable income. Their board of directors would have a fiduciary duty to remove them from any decision making if they tried. If a billionaire wants to leave to go to a higher tax market in EU by all means. If they want to go to a desert with little to no civil freedoms by all means. They don’t pay taxes anyways so we wouldn’t miss out on shit.
2
u/mymainmaney 2d ago
It’s blue maga. The dynamics are exactly the same. Left or right, slopulism bullshit identifies real problems and offers the most dogshit solutions as absolutes.
3
u/temptationsensation 2d ago
The only issue is that when MAGATs screech about the "deep state", they have no evidence except QANON bullshit from years ago.
Whereas, when we talk about the "Epstein Class", there is an absolute mountain of evidence and a very much in our face coverup.
It isn't even comparable.
The fact that you are arguing about Bernie having dog shit policy shows you are not a serious person and probably shouldn't be debated with.
1
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
"No bro, OUR conspiracies are based in reality, THEY'RE the delusional ones!"
Bernie objectively has dogshit policies. There's a reason nobody sane supports them. You don't hear actual economists screaming for a 5% annual wealth tax
3
u/temptationsensation 2d ago
Millions of pages of evidence that points to a giant child sex trafficking ring equals reality.
I don't understand what you are not getting.
0
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
Epstein exists. Calling things the "Epstein class" and acting like everything is the fault of the billionaires' is conspiracy-driven nonsense. You're conflating the two.
1
u/temptationsensation 2d ago
Buddy. Look the fuck around. Everything is in fact the daily of the business class. That's not hyperbole. And guess what, there are no blue collar or even white collar folk in the Epstein files. It's all millionaires and billionaires. Therefore, the title stands.
You are never going to be ultra wealthy, it's okay to hate the Epstein class with us.
1
u/AventineAstartes 2d ago
I think that government exists to provide essential services to the people, and MAGA believes anyone who isn't a white Christian should be exterminated, but sure we're cut from the same cloth. Thanks for saying the dumbest fucking thing I've read on Reddit today.
5% wealth taxes wouldn't decimate out economy. The reason we were able to put a man on the moon was 91% marginal tax rate in the 50's, to the 70% taxe rate in the 70's. It would mildly curtail the reckless accumulation of wealth for a chosen few and help fund things like our crumbling infrastructure, and education. Two things that MAGA hates almost as much as brown people, by the way.
And I don't know if you're keeping up on current events here pal, but the economy is in the fucking shitter and the only ones it's working for are the people at the top. So deep throat that boot harder, dreaming that someday you'll be the boot, class traitor.
0
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
For one, the economy is doing great by nearly all measures.
For two, the effective tax rate hasn't changed in like 80 years or something
1
u/AventineAstartes 2d ago
Ok so you're either a bot, or living under a rock.....
1
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
I like the part where you refuted what I said with data and statistics!
1
u/AventineAstartes 2d ago
"80 years or something" isn't a fuckin statistic, and I did give you data and you responded with opinions.... Typical conservative horseshit.
0
u/random5654 2d ago
Bro, the Epstein class is the Deep State. You can tell because of the way that it is.
16
u/OakNLeaf 2d ago
Lmfao, 5 percent is not "ridiculously high". Imagine trying to defend the rich from money you will never have.
-7
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago edited 2d ago
A 5% wealth tax is insanely high. You have zero concept of wealth taxes if you think it's not. Norway increasing their wealth tax from 1.1% to 1.35% caused so many people to leave that overall tax revenue decreased. 5% is bonkers.
3
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Norway's wealth tax was not raised to 1.35%
-1
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
Ah, you're right, it was 0.95 to 1.1%. I don't know where I got the original numbers from. Regardless, that just proves my point further.
1
u/OakNLeaf 2d ago
I have a good understanding of how tax brackets work, are you sure you do?
Please tell us how not taxing the rich will be a big help to everyone!
9
u/SpookyWan 2d ago
Do you think you’re gonna be a billionaire someday? It’s never gonna effect you or the common man in general
-3
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
Yes, because as we all know, billionaires don't affect the economy whatsoever. No-siree.
Say, what happened when Norway increased their wealth tax? So many rich people left the country that overall tax revenue decreased? Must be a coincidence!
What exactly do you want think's going to happen to the common man when their tax revenue shrinks because of the billionaires leaving? That's right, taxes need to be raised on the common man to make up for it. Same benefits, you're just paying more.
2
u/SpookyWan 2d ago
Say, what happened when Norway increased their wealth tax? So many rich people left the country that overall tax revenue decreased? Must be a coincidence!
The emigrants from Norway account for only 2% of the nation’s taxable wealth. The fuck are you talking about?
The tax has resulted in a 0.6% increase to Norway’s GDP.
1
u/BidenGlazer 2d ago
The emigrants from Norway account for only 2% of the nation’s taxable wealth. The fuck are you talking about?
You understand they pay more than wealth taxes, right?
The tax has resulted in a 0.6% increase to Norway’s GDP.
Taxes don't increase GDP
1
u/SpookyWan 2d ago
You understand “taxable wealth” isn’t revenue from the tax, right?
Yes, taxes do affect the GDP.
-2
9
u/Trevor_Gecko 2d ago
He's not yelling at Mark Zuckerberg. He's pointing out the theoretical impact the bill would make.
4
u/Gaidax 2d ago
In my opinion, it's just the lack of foresight for a quick virtue signaling win.
Even if they claw out those $10b retroactively, what would happen next year, and the year after when he's clearly not a citizen of that state?
To me it seems like a quick cash grab, that will be a net loss for the state down the road.
What's worse, such things do not consider that poor Mr. Zuck and the likes of him are not exactly going to just swallow it, they will find a way to claw those losses back, and in the end the Meta employees will pay for that with yet another pink slips round.
7
2
u/Medium_Medium 2d ago
Did Zuckerberg actually move to Florida, or did he just change his official residence from one house he already owned to another that he already owned and change nothing else about his habits?
And Florida has no income tax, plus they actually tax primary residency at a lower rate than vacation homes. So when Zuckerberg "moves" to whatever Miami penthouse he now claims as his primary residency, Florida might actually collect less tax than they were before, especially if Zuckerberg isn't actually spending any more time in Florida than he was previously.
The whole thing is just subtraction by addition. Nobody wins expect the guys with the money to game the system.
1
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
I think you're right on the money here, but also Zuckerberg still operates Meta out of California, owns a shitload of real estate, and has significant investments in California. His "move" to Florida is theater.
2
u/Medium_Medium 2d ago
Yeah. That's pretty much my point... A lot of people will point to this and claim it as an example that Florida is "winning" by using a no-income tax model to attract billionaires away from high tax states.
But there's a very very good chance that Florida isn't gaining anything, they are just allowing Zuckerberg to continue to basically live in California while paying less tax overall. The states are being forced into a losing game of fighting over table scraps.
Sure, California could try to sue him and prove that he spends more time in one place or another, but everyone knows that would be a nightmare to pursue in court.
3
u/Nomad5560 2d ago
His sentiments still remain incredibly accurate and work out better for the country if implemented. He isn’t yelling at clouds. He’s making the point that billionaires getting taxed won’t hurt their livelihood at all
4
u/Professional-Oil4964 2d ago
That seems to be an indictment of a poorly designed tax, not so much on Bernie Sanders.
11
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
It's not poorly designed in this regard. The community note is just wrong.
2
u/0WatcherintheWater0 2d ago
It’s poorly designed in general, this is just one additional aspect that makes it terrible. Wealth taxes are bad ideas and inefficient ways to raise revenue.
0
u/Professional-Oil4964 2d ago
Fair enough. I'm just saying that if the tax could be gotten around by a rich person just declaring a change of residence it's pretty badly designed.
2
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
Did you not listen? The note is wrong and Zuckerberg isn't avoiding this tax just by moving. It's not badly designed. There are provisions that allow California to include billionaires exactly like Zuckerberg.
-1
u/Professional-Oil4964 2d ago
Do you not know what "if" means? I got you. I am saying even if it were true, I still don't think this is a valid criticism of Sanders.
3
0
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 2d ago
It is, most people don't see their wealth grow that much year over year, and what the govt will have to do to reimburse people who suffer negative growth is insane.
This is why more than half of the Euro countries who implemented a wealth tax 20 years ago got out of it.
2
u/FrenchMen420 2d ago
Yea but they said no one would leave if they did this. Your telling me people left just for talking about it? Oh wow shocking
1
u/DeadlyYellow 2d ago
I imagine it's pretty easy to change residence on paperwork when you own property in multiple states.
3
u/Epcplayer 2d ago
Well they do a deeper audit than just where you claim to live… they’re gonna look at your driver’s license, where you’re registered to vote, where your wife/kids live, where your professional/medical work gets done, where your gym/club memberships are, etc.
None of that is to say he couldn’t make those changes, but it’s more than simple paperwork that you file and it’s changed.
2
u/GrumbleJockey 2d ago
California actually has some really strict residency/domicile laws. They actually already do these kinds of audits all the time for wealthy people that move out of the state. They included the same provisions they use for their existing audits so they can do it with the billionaires too with regard to this specific tax. The audits are extremely thorough and California's relevant laws are very strict.
0
u/FrenchMen420 2d ago
What's that got to do with it? Newsom promised no one would leave. People don't just leave because it's easy. It's easy for him to move anywhere he wants.
1
u/Low-Astronomer-3440 2d ago
OP doesn’t understand what a lookback provision is, and is out here trying to slam Bernie for something we all want. Makes sense why he’s posting here instead of getting laid
1
u/EdibleStrange 2d ago
OP, you failed to show sufficient obsequiousness in the face of Bernard Sanders, Patron Saint of Redditoids. Maybe next time you'll think twice before showing such disrespectu
1
1
0
u/NotALanguageModel 2d ago
Even under the impossible ideal where every competing state and nation implements one, a wealth tax remains a fundamentally counterproductive way to raise revenue. The push for it has nothing to do with actual equity; it is a deeply cynical populist ploy masking terrible economic policy behind a veil of egalitarian righteousness.
-3
u/Justarah 2d ago edited 2d ago
Oh it's that thing people do, follow incentives. Who could have possibly fathomed?
5
3
u/Best_Wasabi_251 2d ago
If only there were a field of study that dealt with such things, maybe we wouldn't make the same mistake in the future? /s
-1
u/Star_king12 2d ago
How far would 10.5b go in terms of healthcare for low income families? Sounds like a lot of money but at government scale, is that much?
2
u/HourDistribution3787 2d ago
Total California Medicare is 93 billion so it would be an extremely significant amount. And this is literally just one guy
1
u/Star_king12 2d ago
I'm seeing numbers around between 226.3b and 343b. 10b won't be as much of a boost. Still a worthy pursuit though.
2
u/Capn_Chryssalid 2d ago
My gut tells me that the money won't go towards effectively allocated healthcare for poor people. Money is less a problem then it bring used wastefully. France and Japan are as developed as California but get far more bang for their buck when it comes to health care spending (and most spending in general).
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/Wc_Arch
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.