Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/18/2026 8:03:49 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A proposal to impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the assets of California billionaires has qualified for the November ballot.
The California Secretary of State’s office announced Wednesday that supporters had gathered enough signatures to place the measure before voters after months of maneuvering and opposition from influential political and business leaders.
The proposal, backed by a health care union, would levy a one-time tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents.
Advocates of the measure claim the increase in revenue would help offset the effects of federal spending reductions and provide resources to prevent hospital closures and job losses. Among those backing the proposal is socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Opponents, including Newsom and several Silicon Valley business leaders, believe the tax would damage California’s business environment and encourage wealthy taxpayers to relocate, reducing state revenue in the long run.
The measure has split California’s Democratic coalition, creating divisions among labor groups and drawing significant financial involvement from technology executives and business organizations.
A prominent critic of the tax is Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has joined other opponents in funding efforts aimed at countering the initiative and advancing alternative ballot measures.
Despite qualifying for the ballot, it may not end up with a vote.
Proponents retain the option of withdrawing the measure before a late June deadline as part of an agreement involving lawmakers and the governor. The billionaires tax is one of several competing tax-related proposals currently under discussion, including a separate union-backed tax extension, a business-supported effort to limit future tax increases and other initiatives backed by Brin and his allies.
Leaders of SEIU-UHW, the health care union sponsoring the proposal, have said they want voters to decide the issue. More recently, however, they have indicated a willingness to continue discussions as Newsom works to build opposition among labor and health care organizations.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Soon only the homeless people will be left to collect taxes from.
“One time” LOL
Spencer Pratt: - Gavin Newsom & Wife DOJ Investigation “The Stench of Corruption”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0WcTYcx1XI
https://www.youtube.com/@SPOCKWADPRODUCTIONS
I don’t get it. Drive away the highest tax payers for a one time payment. That money will be squandered in less than a year of crazy socialist engineering stuff.
The first paragraph is deceiving.
It’s supposed to be a one time tax.
Anyone believe that if they go down this road of levying a wealth tax, that they won’t do it again in the future?
This only sounds good to women. I am more convinced America’s ruin is at the feet of women.
California is in an exposure operation and will be cleaned up first; the rest of the Blue States will be next then come the RED states that need attention. Look at what is going on in Texas with their Muslim issue(s) and other illegal issues.
Anyone know why the original 13 colonies who fought for our independence are all Blue Liberal shit holes today? Just curious.
Just ordinary Communist theft
Here’s your choice, Kalifornia: you can have half a loaf, or none-of-a-loaf... nothing will drive your Sugar Daddies out of the state faster than this.
So who decides the value of their assets?
Will Jay Leno have to sell off a few cars to get 5% cash for the tax?
And can they somehow inflate assets (land, stocks, Crypto, 401s, movie stars residuals, value of NIL (name, image, likeness), etc.)?
And can they inflate some values to somehow capture ‘Middle-Class’?
Maybe there needs to be a referendum to put a “one-time” 10% wealth tax on California state-level politicians, and former politicians.
Really rich people should simply rent their living accommodations.
Why does it matter that Bernie Sanders supports this? Kind of a strange mention in the article.
Anyone who thinks it is a “one-time tax”, I’ve got a great deal on a bridge I have for sale.
So who decides the value of their assets?
Getting paid to vote for Democrats isn't enough income to require filing a tax return.
The democRATS / DemoKKKrats use the Brezhnev Doctrine to decide most things.
What mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
The democRATS / DemoKKKrats are the Party of Government. They believe all of the money belongs to the Government. Therefore, all of the money belongs to them. They will dole it out as they see fit, keeping much more than 10% for the Big Guy.
.
I was just trying to read , which is a massive 34 page monstrosity... and about a third of it involves that very question.
In short (kinda):
1. Every California taxpayer will have to prove they AREN'T subject to this tax, if push comes to shove.
2. Those who ARE subject to the tax will have to document ALL of their assets -- complete with valid appraisals -- to document how much they owe. This alone could cost thousands.
3. It applies to individuals and trusts.
4. If the state doesn't believe you, they will come after you and do their own assessments.
5. There are provisions that will go after you if you attempt to transfer assets to others (AND NOTE THE DATE BELOW):
"Net worth shall include the value of any property the individual transferred
(other than property transferred to a trust described above) for less than fair
market value after October 15, 2025, if such property either considered alone or
together with other substantially interchangeable transferred items has a fair
market value in excess of $1 million ($1,000,000). An asset included in the net
worth of the transferor as a result of this subparagraph shall not be included in
the net worth of the transferee."
"Any assets of a person who can be claimed as a dependent that are in excess of
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in aggregate shall be deemed to be assets of the
taxpayer who can claim them as a dependent."
This is truly an evil document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.