Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes

2 days ago by technocrit to c/politics

Gov. Gavin Newsom isn't just fighting the billionaire tax. He's backing Prop. 42, which would ban future wealth taxes in California, too.

Not only has Gov. Gavin Newsom vocally opposed the proposed California billionaire tax, but he also wants to prevent the state from ever passing a wealth tax in the future.

On Friday he endorsed Proposition 42, a ballot measure that would cancel out Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax. Prop. 42 would prohibit retroactive taxes like the one-time 5% tax on assets that would apply to any billionaire who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026 if Prop. 40 passes.

But Prop. 42, funded and placed on the ballot by billionaire and Google co-founder Sergey Brin to defeat the billionaire tax, also would go further, by banning any new taxes on personal property.

That includes pensions and 401K accounts before retirees start drawing retirement income from them. It also includes other investments, financial assets, business holdings, art collections and all other forms of personal wealth that would be affected by the billionaire tax or any future wealth tax.

Newsom’s decision to support Prop. 42 runs counter to his own Democratic Party and some labor unions. It also aligns him with some of the wealthy tech donors with whom he’s maintained longstanding relationships dating back to his days as mayor of San Francisco.

load all comments
Yuccagnocchiyaki 26 points 2 days ago

With moves like that, we all KNOW the Dems are going to hold all of the rich pedophilic traitors responsible for their illegal actions FOR SURE!

I mean, he won't tax them, but he will DEFINITELY arrest them, and have them convicted and imprisoned FOR SURE

With all of the illegal actions and stealing of our cash, the DEMS will DEFINITELY hold the tech bros responsible for their pedophilic and traitorous actions! Nevermind that the dem leadership is ALSO PAID BY THIEL. They will hold musk and co responsible and imprison them FOR SURE

Just keep voting for Dems and you will be able to beat those random two (or 6) that flip at key votes. If you vote a little harder for Democrats, they will be able to defeat the parliamentarian when they have the votes.

Nevermind that the Democrats have NEVER restored any benefits or programs that Republicans have cut (they had the votes in '96 and didn't, Newsome could have done universal healthcare and he didn't)

ITS TIME FOR SOMETHING ELSE. NO MORE FASCISM

path: 0 26271530, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 42
adjectivenoun 11 points 2 days ago

Voting strategically for the least bad candidate presented by the two major parties is the only thing that has been shown to work. It's how we have the DSA candidates in government that we actually have. None of them have ever won by running as a third party. Not a single one.

Which is why it's so important to turn out during the primaries. Make sure Gavin isn't the candidate by voting for candidates you actually like during the primaries. If he wins the nomination, and I sure hope he doesn't, I'd still vote for him over JD Vance or whatever sick fascist wins the GOP nomination. That's how it works.

path: 0 26271530 26271725, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 41
kestrel7_7 11 points a day ago

I’d still vote for him over JD Vance or whatever sick fascist wins the GOP nomination.

You would, I would, but the 2024 election showed that this doesn’t speak to enough voters to win. If the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t act on that info, I’m not sure what to do

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272668, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 9
Rekorse 5 points a day ago

That doesnt work because always being the side that compromises means you lose ground every time.

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272668 26273796, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 7
kreskin 3 points a day ago

great but he cant win. Dems will just sit on the couch if he runs, same as with Harris.

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272668 26274663, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
UnderpantsWeevil 10 points a day ago

Voting strategically for the least bad candidate presented by the two major parties is the only thing that has been shown to work

It hasn't worked. It gave us Clinton, the OG Epsteincrat. Then it gave us a string of loser shitlibs who caved to fascism at the first shove. And a long string of corporate cutouts - from Biden to Lieberman to Manchin to Fetterman - who only knew how to obstruct from within the Democratic party.

This strategy is why America is the only country in the industrial world without a public health care policy. It's why we have exploding student debts and a housing crisis. Neoliberalism is a curse.

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272620, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 28
hr_ 2 points a day ago

Not trying to be pedantic but the housing crisis is not specific to the US, it's a problem that exists in a lot of the Western world. The leave the other two as special US issues along with gun violence, incarceration rates along with a whole string of other issues that are American exceptionalism.

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272620 26273798, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
adjectivenoun -2 points a day ago

What is your strategy and can you point to it having worked recently? Electing Obama was preferable to electing McCain, was it not? Electing Clinton was preferable to reelecting Bush Sr., was it not? Electing Hillary would have been preferable to Trump. Y/N? Electing Biden was preferable to reelecting Trump. Y/N? Electing Harris would have been preferable to Trump. Y/N?

This isn't complicated. The system is dead simple, and certain people keep making the wrong choices. We are a democracy. We have the government we have not because choices are being forced on us, but because our citizens keep making shitty choices. Can we not? Please?

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26272620 26273933, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 25
ayyy 3 points a day ago

Voting strategically for the least bad candidate presented by the two major parties is the only thing that has been shown to work.

When has this ever worked?

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26276457, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Semi_Hemi_Demigod 2 points a day ago

Voting strategically for the least bad candidate presented by the two major parties is the only thing that has been shown to work.

If this is the system working then the system is bullshit.

path: 0 26271530 26271725 26279567, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
politics
politics

@lemmy.world

login for more options
31375
33943
9297

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

go to feed...