274
California voters will consider a measure in November to raise taxes on billionaires (apnews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.

“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Consider? Is anyone, other than billionaires, really on the fence about this issue?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I can tell you having voted for multiple taxes that would have only hit the rich in California that this tax will be incessantly attacked by rich people with arguments that it’ll somehow raise a normal person’s taxes. And enough idiots might believe it that this measure will fail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago*

    Yup, I already have received multiple fliers that try to paint it as a generic wealth tax and do not mention that it only applies to billionaires or that it's a one time tax. People will be deceived. Hopefully the language on the ballot is straightforward enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Both the current governor and both potential future governors are against this. The Democratic party in CA hasn't stated its official position, but most of the top D leaders in the state are against this.

    They say it will make the ultra-wealthy leave the state.

    To that I say, "good!" We don't need them, and they are a net negative for us. They barely pay taxes as it is, and they use so many resources that it might be better for our beautiful environment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, cause half the population is brainwashed to think "this is just a slippery slope to raising MY taxes."

    Happens over and over again.

    Illinois has a flat tax written into the state constitution, they keep trying to change it to a progressive tax, and it keeps failing cause of the red part of the state combined with the wealthy blue parts = just enough to keep it from being changed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The billionaires will see how many people they can flip with the $800 billion dollars they're gonna collectively spend in ads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    One of the Google founders has already spent something like $45 million to fight this. He is worth $235B, so this tax would cost him $12B, which would be 300 times as much as he spent to fight it. Not that he would even notice that loss. Is there any functional difference between having $235B and $223B? Of course not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    IMO it's obviously necessary but it absolutely should be a federal thing. States doing it will only allow people who have all the means in the world to just move and get away from it. The US moving towards more tribalistic laws isn't helping anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent