Google Guys Say Bye to California

Can't believe anything onepigironheaded smoothbrainaut (25 plonks) posts.

His integrity is in the toilet.

He refuses to own up to his own previous lies.

So why believe anything now?

They got the money, hey, you know they got away
They headed down south and they're still running today
Singin'

... Go on, take the money and run
Go on, take the money and run
Hoo-hoo-hoo
Go on, take the money and run
Ooh lord, go on, take the money and run
Hoo-hoo-hoo

@#2 ... More billionaire s^*%bags who took and took and took and took who are now leaving because they don't think $60 billion is enough money to give some back. ...

Yup.

FAFO. They are being driven out.

The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.

This is a classic case of federalism working exactly as designed.

Wealth tax? Bye.

How in your mind does this relate to Federalism?

The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.

#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your constant denial of reality is a sight to behold.

They made hundreds billions off of being in California.

So entitled they can't support the state that supported them and gave them the opportunity?

Like I said. Go on. Take the money and run.

The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.
#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

How's the dollar value of the entitlement compare to the right wing entitlement to tariffs?

" So entitled they can't support the state that supported them and gave them the opportunity?"

Better opportunity elsewhere. Welcome to the real world.

Better opportunity elsewhere. Welcome to the real world.
#13 | Posted by BellRinger

That's what Republicans say when Capitalism moves American factories to China.

How in your mind does this relate to Federalism?
#10 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You might need a lesson on the definition of "federalism"

States attempting differing experiments on taxation etc etc.

They made hundreds billions off of being in California.

They made hundreds of billions being in the US stock market, why can't they move anywhere in the US?
They made hundreds of billions being on the planet earth, why can't they move anywhere on earth?

So entitled they can't support the state that supported them and gave them the opportunity?

They paid taxes, they paid so much taxes that in order to recoup the current loss CA needs to raise income tax to 20% (+9%) for middle class.

To say nothing about educating their workforce
#4 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

I wouldn't say California is educating their workforce. Their workforce is like my office here in SiliconValley, mostly immigrants, and east coast university graduates, a couple of Californians.

California isn't what it used to be.

California firefighters never protected their property, police officers never kept them safe, street cleaners never took care of their neighborhoods, right?

Fascinating this is precisely true.

Firefighters to the governor failed horrendously in keeping Palisades protected.
Police Officers aren't meant to keep you safe, just ask Snoofy.
I have never seen a "street cleaner".

So not sure what you're talking about.

Billionaires are the actual parasites.

@#18 ... Billionaires are the actual parasites. ...

... and Pres Trump's policies seem to be facilitating them.

I have never seen a "street cleaner".
So not sure what you're talking about.

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-12 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Home Owners Associations pay for street sweeping services. Mostly the vehicles that do it look a combination of vacuum and dump truck. The suburbs pay for it through annual HOA fees.

The French Quarter in New Orleans, famous for smelling like urine and piss, and other places withs similar needs, pay for liquid washer trucks called often called Scrubbers. They look like the street sweepers, but with giant pressure washing systems added on.

Also, the rich in Cali? and most states? In those private, gated neighborhoods, they pay for the roads in it through HOA fees those are specifically NOT public roads. They pay for the security. Cali rich are famous for having private firefighters. If you gave them the Disney deal where it's Disney As The Government, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

Public infrastructure is for The Poors.

" famous for smelling like urine and piss"

Pardon the redundancy.

I wouldn't say California is educating their workforce. Their workforce is like my office here in SiliconValley, mostly immigrants, and east coast university graduates, a couple of Californians.

California isn't what it used to be.

#16 | Posted by oneironaut

You should check out Kansas or West Virginia

" So entitled they can't support the state that supported them and gave them the opportunity?"

Better opportunity elsewhere. Welcome to the real world.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger

They're not moving their businesses to some red state full of christofascists because those morons aren't smart enough to help them make money.

They're just moving their private jets and mansions to a lower tax state to avoid repaying the people who made them rich.

So entitled they can't support the state that supported them and gave them the opportunity?

Didnt they pay taxes while they were there? Now it's come out you are going to go deeper in their pockets and you cant understand why they want to leave?

So you are saying they cant ever leave when there's a better business deal? California still does have to compete with other states.

FAFO. They are being driven out.
The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger

And here's ---------- to make sure there's no doubt he's a spineless sycophant.

" They're just moving their private jets and mansions to a lower tax state to avoid repaying the people who made them rich.

#24 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2026-01-12 02:13 PM | FLAG: "

The entire world made the tech giants rich because their products are in high demand. California wants to confiscate wealth? See ya!

Better opportunity elsewhere. Welcome to the real world.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger

You mean a fresh population and environment to extract from.

You're such a pathetic cuck.

California's excessive regulations have served as barriers to competition. It makes for a good place for monopolies to exist. A wealth tax (asset confiscation)? Well, all of a sudden other states look more attractive.

" You mean a fresh population and environment to extract from"

Do you work for free?

California wants to confiscate wealth? See ya!

#27 | Posted by BellRinger

Ahhh so you'r wandering into the tax is confiscation territory, eh?

Because $60 billion just isn't enough.

You don't actually know enough math to understand numbers that large, do you?

You get paid to study pathogens, right?

Do you work for free?

#30 | Posted by BellRinger

Yup. Pathetic cuck.

It's almost as if he lives in reality but can't actually see it.

#25 And China still has to compete with America.

It was a better business deal, which is why there was that great sucking sound of jobs being lost to China.

Capitalism, if you will.

Right, Major DEI Boazo? **

** what boaz' white "friends" call him behind his back, and then laugh and laugh and laugh.

boaz' white "friends": Major DEI Boazo - HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

boaz walks in: Whatcha guys laughing about?

boaz' white "friend": Us? Oh, not a thing, Maj ... er, boaz. Sit right down and entertain us."

#31. Why do you hate freedom so much?

" Yup. Pathetic cuck."

How do you pay your bills if you aren't being paid to work?

I guess maybe you don't work - a stay at home dad whose wife makes enough to support the whole family? If so, good for you.

Fact is you and/or your wife are being paid for what you do and you likely take advantage of every tax avoidance option built into the system. Why is this any different?

The entire world made the tech giants rich because their products are in high demand. California wants to confiscate wealth? See ya!

#27 | Posted by BellRinger

Long ago california invested in the education and infrastructure that made the tech industry blossom there. While west virginia was investing in coal mines and dooming themselves, california invested in the future. These tech billionaires used resources created by the state to get rich. They owe a lot back to the state.

#39 100% Speak.

Ingratitude is a Cardinal Sin.

Pardon the redundancy.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-12 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

My mistake. Urine and vomit. Sometimes, feces. and legal weed now.

In the morning when the trucks are going around, in between passing garbage can stacks waiting for daily pickup, it smells like lemon.

They're not moving their businesses to some red state

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-01-12 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Google? They're in 50 states. As far as talent, decentralized. Their engineering hubs are Mountain View, NYC, Austin, Kirkland, Pittsburgh, Dublin, Munich, Malaga, Taiwan, Mexico City, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Gurugram, Mumbai...

" They owe a lot back to the state.

#39 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2026-01-12 02:55 PM | REPLY"

It was a symbiotic relationship. They don't owe the state anything more than what they've already paid in taxes.

The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-12 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we're to be honest, it's called theft.

#44 Taxes are theft, Left Hind Turds?

If that's the case, who's gonna pay Major DEI Boazo's government retirement payments?

LOL now we have a dumbs*&^ chiming in with taxes = theft.

#44 Taxes are theft, Left Hind Turds?

Not all taxes, but what CA is doing here is theft.

Property taxes are theft
Taxes on vehicles after the first sale is theft

If we're to be honest, it's called theft.

#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds

If you're being honest, what do you call saddling our kids with insurmountable debt in order to fund tax cuts for the super rich?

LOL now we have a dumbs*&^ chiming in with taxes = theft.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2026-01-12 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go find a frat party and make yourself useful.

Property taxes are theft
Taxes on vehicles after the first sale is theft

#47 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Property taxes are the membership fees for society. You can be free of them if you remove yourself from society. Which you should clearly do.

It was a symbiotic relationship. They don't owe the state anything more than what they've already paid in taxes.

#43 | Posted by BellRinger

The more you profited from the state's investments, the more you owe back to the state. Considering california's investments made these companies the richest in the world, they owe back a lot more than they've paid.

"Property taxes are theft"

Then move to where they don't have them.

Isn't that your central point?!?

#47 Then what are you doing about all that property and resold-car taxes you have your panties all in a wad about, Left Hind Turds?

Complaining on an anonymous message board?

My, how "courageous" of you. /s

Property taxes are theft
Taxes on vehicles after the first sale is theft
#47 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So then don't own any property.
Don't own any vehicles.
Easy enough to not get robbed.
Why is your own Republican State robbing you like that?

Why is your own Republican State robbing you like that?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-12 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which Democrat state doesn't do it? Asking for a friend.

#55 Sorry, Left Hind Turds.

You're the only one (here) complaining about that.

Don't try to reflect your ignorance on others.

Doesn't work, Left Hind Turds.

" they owe back a lot more than they've paid.

#51 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2026-01-12 03:28 PM | FLAG: "

Not according to the law. This reminds me of John Kerry registering his yacht in a different state than the one he resides in all to avoid paying a hefty tax on it.

Which Democrat state doesn't do it? Asking for a friend.
#55 | Posted by lfthndthrds

If you thought you were getting robbed, you would already know.

It's okay with you when Republicans rob you, is what you're telling us.

You're just using "robbed" as hyperbole, right?

You didn't just acknowledge that you get cucked by the state, every time you voluntarily pay your taxes like a Beta, right?

The absolute sense of entitlement by the left on this is amazing to watch.
#8 | Posted by BellRinger

If we're to be honest, it's called theft.
#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Since we're being honest, impress us with your honest opinion of the Trump Tariffs.

Or is that a bridge too far, as your capacity for honesty goes.

Not according to the law. This reminds me of John Kerry registering his yacht in a different state than the one he resides in all to avoid paying a hefty tax on it.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger

Excellent example of why taxing the rich needs to be done on a federal level.

" Excellent example of why taxing the rich needs to be done on a federal level.

#60 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2026-01-12 05:38 PM | FLAG: "

It's called federal income tax.

It's called federal income tax.
#61 | Posted by BellRinger

No it's not.
Rich people don't make much money from labor income.
Quite a few of them don't pay any Federal income tax.
Even more pay a lower rate than you and I do, assuming you pay any taxes at all, which maybe you don't with your 100% disability status, but I am in the 24% tax bracket.

Hey Snoofy, Should I move to Illinois or California to get a breather? No? Probably not...Wonder why?

"Hey Snoofy, Should I move to Illinois or California to get a breather?"

No dummy. You should sell your property. Then you won't have to pay property taxes, no matter where you live.

It is true that by now it is impossible believe anything Onenaut posts on the DR. He is like just another ad to skip by immediately. Kind of like those butt-paste ads which Rcade used to post.

OK, I get it... MAGA hates taxes on the wealthy.

As shown by their passage in Congress of Pres Trump's directive that reduced taxes on the wealthy by trillions.

But did little to reduce taxes on workers.

Quite the contrary, Trump's directive, which MAGA in Congress passed, increased monthly cost of living for workers by reducing/eliminating SNAP benefits and eliminating health care benefits.

"But did little to reduce taxes on workers."

First, what is a "worker?" In my mind, it's anyone earning labor income. So...that's most of us.

So I assume you mean low-income workers. Yet there is not much left the government could do to reduce taxes for them, and would it really matter all that much. You could exclude them from having to pay FICA taxes, but then would they lose the benefits if someone else didn't? Should FEDGOV reimburse them for state taxes they've paid?

Also, virtually all of us started out as low-income workers. Most of us move beyond that. I'm not sure my 20-year daughter in college needs SNAP or Medicaid, which makes me wonder why so many people claim to need them.

@#67 ... First, what is a "worker?" In my mind, it's anyone earning labor income. So...that's most of us. ...

My view is that "worker" means low- and middle-income folk, i.e., those that spend most of their income on necessities to live.

.. Yet there is not much left the government could do to reduce taxes for them ...

Bingo!

That's the point here.

Reducing taxes is not the only way a government can assist.

Instead of providing assistance for those who live, and try to live, paycheck-to-paycheck, indeed, Pres Trump has stopped such assistance ...

Pres Trump seems to be providing massive (and I do mean massive, i.e., trillions of dollars) of tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.

While he seems to be OK with Americans not being able to buy food to live.

First, what is a "worker"?

Here in BC, a worker is generally defined as a non-management employee of a company. A lot of them make good money.

The entire world made the tech giants rich because their products are in high demand. California wants to confiscate wealth? See ya!

#27 | Posted by BellRinger

No. And you're an idiot for thinking the world is that simple. Jesus Christ, you are just so dumb it hurts.

They became rich because we gave them a stable, rich domestic market, we gave them a reliable, educated workforce to develop their products, a safe, protected property from which to do business, reliable infrastructure and utilities, a nation where they didn't have to worry about a foreign country or terrorist organization blowing them or their business up, and robust IP protection laws and courts to protect their patents.

They leached off that to make their wealth and used every tax cheat in the book along the way. Google also used anti-competitive practices to drive off competition and bankrupt them.

So let them go to a red state and leach off them for a while.

Or better yet, go to a country like Ethiopia or Iraq or Afghanistan or Ecuador and see if they could repeat the success there. There is a reason all of these products are coming from the US and not Europe, China, Japan, Korea, Africa or anywhere else in Asia or Australia.

Isn't Brin a leftie? Meaning he was NOT a supporter of Trump and in fact a pretty staunch supporter $$$$ of Harris?

This is why Newsome can't support this tax. He can't piss guys like Brin off.

The Morbidly Rich have Captured both parties and our Entire system of Government.

Citizens United guaranteed that outcome if it wasn't already the case before.

Everybody's a Slave to them Now.

"Google also used anti-competitive practices to drive off competition and bankrupt them."

And you all loved it when they were using algorithms to tailor their search results in favor of Democrats and left-wing causes.

"hey leached off that to make their wealth "

EVERY business in this country benefits from the security and infrastructure that is provided. In return, successful businesses contribute to the economy by producing goods and services desired by the market and employ all sorts of people to help deliver those goods and services. You commies are so economically illiterate. It's staggering.

"and used every tax cheat in the book along the way."

"Tax cheat"? As if you don't use every tax avoidance option built into the tax code. "Avoidance for me but not for thee." Typical unprincipled hack.

"So let them go to a red state and leach off them for a while."

Any red state would love that - with the economy boosting jobs and tax revenues baked in...

-So let them go to a red state and leach off them for a while.

49 other states will roll out the red carpet for them.

Is that because you're smarter than all of them? You've calculated they are leeches? You alone?

Why do you think Newsom is distancing himself from this? Is it only because he needs their support when he runs for the WH or because he really feels it will hurt California if these folks leave?

49 other states will roll out the red carpet for them.

lol guess they will just have to learn the hard way.

Like the State of Virginia is currently learning.

Enjoy those unregulated massive Data Centers!

Virginia's massive data center industry, the largest in the world, is creating a significant energy challenge that some experts and state reports describe as a "potential energy crisis" as of 2026. While the state has not yet experienced widespread blackouts, the rapid growth in demand is straining the existing electrical grid and forcing major changes in energy planning.

-Lol guess they will just have to learn the hard way.

So you think they all get it wrong as well?

I guess then notion is that billionaires bring tax revenue and high paying jobs (which is also about tax revenue).

Personally? I could care less about recruiting a billionaire to my state. You'd have to show me what's in it for me and my community.

everyone is conditioned to believe growth and jobs is essential all of the time.

I grew up near a town that saw enormous growth in 1 sector......beef packing.

Brought lots of jobs. But it's nasty and gross and many folks left as a result.

Anything I say beyond this will label me a racist but I can show you what the community looked like before and what it looks like now.

I liked the before.

Oh, and those data centers? ---- those......they are massive water hogs. no thanks.

I guess then notion is that billionaires bring tax revenue and high paying jobs (which is also about tax revenue).

Which is mostly just bait and switch. They get the tax breaks but never produce the high paying jobs or tax revenues as promised.

Oh, and those data centers? ---- those......

They come with the Tech Bros and their AI. It's a package deal.

"So let them go to a red state and leach off them for a while."

Any red state would love that - with the economy boosting jobs and tax revenues baked in...

#76 | Posted by BellRinger

With no state income tax, they enjoy all the benefits of public expenditures with no responsibility to pay for them.

"They get the tax breaks but never produce the high paying jobs or tax revenues as promised.

#81 | Posted by donnerboy"

Riiiight.

"With no state income tax, they enjoy all the benefits of public expenditures with no responsibility to pay for them.

#83 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY"

They bring in jobs, pay property taxes, as do their employees. With more money in the hands of the workers more products are purchased and assessed sales tax, etc.

-Which is mostly just bait and switch

We see the obvious examples of that such as that boondoggle in Wisconsin a few years ago.

But every state recruits employers with incentives on taxes, etc. to lure jobs to their locale.

State, County, City....at all levels they do this.

Interesting....usually folks point to the massive economic engine that California is when we discuss these matters. Their weather, political climate, business climate.....it's all an explanation for why California is such a massive economic engine and why everyone wants to live there and why everything is so expensive there.

Not seeing that here. Now, it's billionaires can go ---- themselves.

Including California billionaires. Billionaires in California were better than Billionaires in a red state.....just because......

LOL

-With no state income tax, they enjoy all the benefits of public expenditures with no responsibility to pay for them.

Is that what you're accusing yourself of? You live in TN, correct?

Are you a leech?

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming

Most red states have an income tax. Just sayin....

Nevada, their chosen state, has no state income tax.

I'm not a billionaire, and didn't move here to shirk paying taxes.

Billionaires already have oodles of tax loopholes the GOP gave them to avoid paying a whole lot of their federal taxes too.

From AI:

"For the 2022 tax year (the latest available data), the top 10% of U.S. income earners paid approximately 72% of all federal income taxes. Other analyses using data from 2021 found a slightly higher share of around 76%."

That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code.

but are you "enjoying all the benefits of public expenditures with no responsibility to pay for them" or not?

Or.....tell the whole story. What's Tennessee property tax and sales tax environment?

-72% of all federal income taxes.

I'll steal Danforth's thunder a little here........does that calculation include FICA taxes?

Top 10% of Recipients: Received 76% of total USDA payments.

Top 7% of Recipients: Received 68% of payments.

The bottom 80% of recipients collectively received only about 10% of the total payments.

" top 10% of U.S. income earners paid approximately 72% of all federal income taxes"

You're cherry-picking.

Now do payroll taxes, the kind ~70% of workers pay more of over their working lifetimes.

Then, tell me what is a better deal: money upfront, with 6%-9% annual growth assumptions, or a 2% bond with a 25yr average maturity?

"That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code."

Hey Einstein, if rates go down, and the wealthiest still end up paying a larger percentage...THAT MEANS EVEN MORE WEALTH HAS TRANSFERRED UPWARD.

"That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code."

That just tells you no tax code can be progressive enough.

The fairness of it will still be in question. No matter what. Wealth inequality is what it's really about.

"does that calculation include FICA taxes"

Of course not.

Payroll (FICA) taxes, which total 15.3%, start at dollar one.

Income taxes don't start until around $14,000, and for the next $10K, they're at 10%. So whatever lead payroll taxes have, it keeps getting bigger, until the taxpayer hits the 22% federal, then it STARTS to catch up. In fact, income taxes don't exceed payroll taxes until income is over $130,000.

"Wealth inequality is what it's really about."

Wealth changes is what it's really about.

Look at all the tax brackets: some are thousands of dollars apart, some are tens of thousands of dollars apart. Only one has a bracket which doesn't change when income increases $100 billion.

Without looking, I guarantee you we have a larger % of taxpayers in the top bracket than we did in fairer years past.

They bring in jobs, pay property taxes, as do their employees. With more money in the hands of the workers more products are purchased and assessed sales tax, etc.

POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I should not have said "never". That was a mistake. I generally avoid absolutes regrading anything.

Sometimes they do bring high paying jobs.

Many times however they do not. As Eberly pointed out regarding Wisconsin.

Like Trumpy many would prefer to hire cheap foreign workers instead of Americans who foolishly think they are entitled to benefits and affordable healthcare.

Re 96

Regrading = regarding

"The fairness of it will still be in question. No matter what. "

Well, I think getting a trillionaire before eradicating world hunger should be an alarm bell.

" Like Trumpy many would prefer to hire cheap foreign workers instead of Americans who foolishly think they are entitled to benefits and affordable healthcare.

#96 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2026-01-13 02:22 PM | FLAG: "

That is one of the benefits of securing the border and deporting illegal aliens.

The only way one becomes a billionaire is by hoarding the profits of labor, denying workers fair compensation to their workforce.

Greed was once considered a sin.

Now it's praised.

Billionaires own (Congress and the President, but that's another story) they own Corporations who DO NOT PAY A LIVING WAGE to their Employees, don't provide an adequate workplace, and have crap insurance.

But they also own Trumpers, hell, they got one of their own elected President.

How's DOGE doing, btw?

And WHERE ARE THE EPSTEIN FILES?

FICA taxes are tied to retirement age benefits.

It's called federal income tax.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger

Doesn't work on the super rich who just take zero salary and get loans against their stocks.

That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code.

#88 | Posted by BellRinger

If the super rich are hoarding more and more wealth while the working class have less and less, then it's obviously not progressive enough.

-Well, I think getting a trillionaire before eradicating world hunger should be an alarm bell.

1 of those will happen. the other one has zero chance of happening.

-Now it's praised.

I certainly don't view myself as someone who praises such greed and I'm sure you don't view yourself any differently.

This issue is about the reality of even trying to pass such a tax and what can happen.

I'm shocked anybody has committed to anything. In fact, I don't think anybody is going anywhere or at least not for long.

This isn't going to happen. I know, it's easy for me to say...it's not 5% of my net worth on the line.

but ask yourselves this...if your state told you to fork over 5% of your net worth, how would you respond?

"FICA taxes are tied to retirement age benefits."

They're funding current tax cuts, for future IOUs...which WILL be devalued, because they'll have to be.

Answer my question: which is more valuable? The 6-9% upfront cash, or the 2% bond @ 25 years?

Actual Math answers only.

"hey're funding current tax cuts, for future IOUs...which WILL be devalued, because they'll have to be."

Sad but true.

"if your state told you to fork over 5% of your net worth, how would you respond?"

They're exempting my IRAs, my pensions, and my properties?!?

Fine by me.

"Sad but true."

Okay.

Now answer the question.

-They're exempting my IRAs, my pensions, and my properties?!?

Is this bill in California?

Most billionaires won't notice the 5%.

This isn't about money.

It's about power.

Billionaires own this country and they won't have their authority questioned.

Newsom doesn't have the minerals to stand up to the people who own him.

"Is this bill in California?"

Those are part of the proposal, yes.

...excluding directly held real estate, certain pensions & retirement accounts, and tangible property held outside California for over 270 days...

-Newsom doesn't have the minerals to stand up to the people who own him.

LOL......I always love this framing of people in a way you can tolerate rather than just rip the -------- bandaid off and accept it for what it is.

People who support democrats are just as demanding and ruthless as those who support republicans.

You're deciding there is a meaningful difference between being corrupt (a republican who's going to run for president who wouldn't support this) and being spineless (a democrat who's going to run for president who won't support this).

What a waste of energy force feeding such meaningless distinctions.

-Most billionaires won't notice the 5%.

They're paying huge attention to it and it's not even likely to happen.

What a waste of energy force feeding such meaningless distinctions.

#114 | POSTED BY EBERLY

"Both sides are the same!"

*drink*

-Those are part of the proposal, yes.

That's not a reality for billionaires due to how their wealth is represented so it's a nice deflection but let's return to how you'd react to having a State take 5% of your estate while leaving most of your neighbors alone.

116

So you think there is a point to manufacturing a meaningless distinction to make yourself feel better for being a partisan?

There are plenty of good reasons to be a liberal, a democrat, a progressive, etc.......this just isn't one of them.

but I guess you can't make the distinction yourself. Instead, you're obligated to force feed yourself no matter how absurd it is.

-Billionaires own this country and they won't have their authority questioned.

Including those who support democrats? Something tells me you can't square yourself to accept that.

"Newsom doesn't have the minerals to stand up to the people who own him."

You all had better be nice to your future President.

You ought to know how cantankerous they can be now once they acquire power.

They're paying huge attention to it and it's not even likely to happen.
#115 | Posted by eberly

The corporate media, owned by billionaires, is paying attention?
I wonder why.

let's return to how you'd react to having a State take 5% of your estate while leaving most of your neighbors alone.
#117 | Posted by eberly

Neighbors?
Since when does a billionaire have working class scrubs like us for neighbors.

but I guess you can't make the distinction yourself. Instead, you're obligated to force feed yourself no matter how absurd it is.

#118 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Blah blah blah..

So you think there is a point to manufacturing a meaningless distinction to make yourself feel better for being a partisan?

Thats your job.

I try to stick to the facts.

Both parties have issues. But both parties are not the same.

Take Citizens United for an example. (Which is the basis of many if not most campaign and political monetary issues)

Democratic politicians generally oppose the decision, arguing it allows wealthy special interests and corporations to "drown out the voice of the American people" with unlimited campaign spending (often referred to as "dark money").

They have repeatedly introduced legislation, such as a constitutional amendment, to reverse the ruling, which has typically failed in the Senate along party lines due to Republican opposition.

Both parties are not the same.

"Both parties are not the same."

Thanks, Capt. Obvious. I already pointed that out and you know that.

But I guess you just can't accept that you're still going to force feed yourself with meaningless distinctions.

The truth is that this issue where Newsom has to come out against this is where folks convince themselves there isn't a difference between the 2 parties when there most certainly are.

But the presence of this massive wealth in our political system diminishes the appearance of such differences.

but let me me clear about this....Gavin Newsom has to distance himself from this kind of bill for the same reason any republican has to. The donors.

Gavin Newsom has to distance himself from this kind of bill for the same reason any republican has to. The Oligarchs.
#124 | Posted by eberly

^
Edited for clarity.

The billionaire donor class is the billionaire donor class.

When they commit 7 or 8 or 9 figures to a political cause/candidate....they expect adherence to their wishes in exchange.

Is it possible there is anybody here who's confused about that?

I know there are folks here who pretend to be confused about it....and a couple have raised their hands.

But I'm going to take the high road and assume they're just kidding.

That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code.
#88 | Posted by BellRinger

No it doesn't.
It speaks to a progressive income tax.

Payroll taxes: Regressive.
Sales taxes: Regressive.
Excise tax: Regressive.

The individual and corporate income taxes and the estate tax are progressive. By contrast, excise taxes are regressive and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are regressive at the top of the income distribution (see figure 2). taxpolicycenter.org

That speaks to a pretty dang progressive income tax code.
#88 | Posted by BellRinger

No it doesn't.
It speaks to a progressive income tax.
#127 | Posted by snoofy

LOL.

Overall tax code is not progressive. Only the income tax is progressive. And the Estate Tax is technically progressive though it mostly serves to fatten up the oligarchs with the $13M tax exemption.

That's why Republicans never, ever talk about the other taxes.
These days, you can't even get Republicans to acknowledge tariffs are a tax.
Or who pays the tax, for that matter.

-Most billionaires won't notice the 5%.

They're paying huge attention to it and it's not even likely to happen.

#115 | Posted by eberly

Because they are mentally unwell. Not because they would feel the effect of having 5% less wealth.
Because they have a hoarder's mentality except with money instead of cats or newspapers.

Similar threats were being made when Mamdani was running for the mayor of New York.

There were threats of exodus!

Difference being Mamdani isn't owned by billionaires, Newsom is.

So now Newsom is panicking that the hand that feeds him is upset.

-Difference being Mamdani isn't owned by billionaires, Newsom is.

There are more differences than that. Top of the list is what power Mamdani has to affect the billionaires in NYC. Next would be Mamdani isn't a candidate for anything else outside of NYC.

FDR was elected 4 times while taxing the very wealthy... which is why Republicans hate the guy that won WWII.

You know what rwingers are saying now, btw?

That we were on the wrong side in that war:

www.youtube.com

-Not because they would feel the effect of having 5% less wealth.

True. It's not that the 5% would impact them in any real way.

-So now Newsom is panicking that the hand that feeds him is upset.

panicking? how so? He didn't have anything to do with writing this bill and he's not supporting it.

Does he have his fingerprints on bill somewhere?

FDR was elected 4 times while taxing the very wealthy...which is why Republicans hate the guy that won WWII.
- corky

And locked up the Japanese without due process.

That's a twofer.

what power Mamdani has to affect the billionaires in NYC.

Based on articles posted here on the DR by people like Turds, Mamdani was going to destroy NYC with his proposed tax plan.

Now the narrative has changed to him not having enough power to implement his policies.

The propaganda machine is always on Maximum Power!

Also btw... Dems have play by the financial rules that Republicans and CU et al put into place; media buys win elections and money buys media.

Until that changes, taking your ball and going home helps no one.

132

Admit it...she was hot.

locked up the Japanese without due process.

You must be conflicted about this since the Japanese are the natural enemies of the Chinese.

-Now the narrative has changed to him not having enough power to implement his policies.

I suppose that explains a lot of dolts who predicted such mayhem as a result of that election.

Pretty normal election drama.

Kind of like the celebrities who promise to leave if the republican on the ticket wins.

....And then make the same promise the next election.....LOL

- locked up the Japanese without due process.

War is Hell, Ms Bitch, and the 1940's wasn't technologically capable of sorting people out quickly.

Of course, the Authoritarians you love just gassed the Jews instead of merely confining them for the duration.

Of course, if you'd like to talk again about the literally millions of lives the Chinese extinguished in that century, of their own people, we can do that again.

"the 1940's wasn't technologically capable of sorting people out quickly."

I would think they made it pretty simple.....if you looked like a ---....you were detained.

Not because they would feel the effect of having 5% less wealth.

Try saying that to the founder of a company that isn't public.

#142 Well, onepigironheaded smoothbrainaut (25 plonks), are you ever going to take personal responsibility for your own lies ? ? ? ?

Also in some cases it's about what percentage of voting rights do you have.

Founders typically can have 50%+ voting rights.
If company valued at $6B, the founder would owe 150million.

Of stock he can't even sell, and if the company fails and doesn't go public, he still owes.

That's why this will stop investment.

#143

Obsession is not a good look for you as someone that had to take a mental health suspension.

#145 Doesn't work, liar.

THIS is not a good look for you:

**** ANATOMY OF A LIAR AND A COWARD ****
Are you ever going to own up to THIS LIE, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut (25 plonks) ? ? ? ?

And I don't suppose that you will own up to your other lie, either.
Well, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut (25 plonks), are you ever going to own up to your own lies ? ? ? ?

"If company valued at $6B, the founder would owe 150million.
Of stock he can't even sell, and if the company fails and doesn't go public, he still owes."

Your argument there is that he's simply not liquid enough to pay the tax?

I would like to think that was debated when drafting this bill but then again....not sure how much realism was allowed during those deliberations.

#146 onepigironheaded smoothbrainaut (25 plonks) refuses to take responsibility for his lies.

I'm only too happy to point out that fact for all to see.

(Well, at least for all who haven't already plonked him for his lying ways, that is.)

#137 My God. I never thought I would see something like that. Until she said we fought on the wrong side of WW2 she was at least somewhat coherent.

Believe it or not Eb's,I don't agree with any of that. Jews are a welome addition to this Country.

Frankly, We should weed out the killer's and Psychopaths and just absorb the 9 million or so Israeli Jews here.

#149 Your wife beating projection is duly noted.

#146 He's itchy because he knows he lied, and he knows he cannot squirm his way out of his (very well documented) lies.

I suppose that explains a lot of dolts who predicted such mayhem as a result of that election.

Pretty normal election drama.

#139 | Posted by eberly

Mayhem only results when the fascist crybabies lose.

Dems still value democracy even when they lose.

Weeding out the Psychopaths might be half the population though.

4 million. That's a lot of Diseased mental cases.

Better leave them where they are.

But Cut Off their military Toys and Cash for Oppression.

#151 Nothing in my #149 says anything about wife beating, bell boi.

Confused?

Or just confessing?

onepigironheaded smoothbrainaut (25 plonks) seems to be longing for a mental health suspension.

Otherwise, why'd she bring it up?

locked up the Japanese without due process.
#140 | Posted by Corky

Since we're invoking precedent, although that one's a stretch since we were at war:
The #1 Most Popular Republican President apologized for Japanese internment, towards the end of the 20th Century.

Since we're invoking precedent, although that one's a stretch since we were at war:

So during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict you had no problem locking up Islamists without due process?

Oh I guess it would be OK if someone apologized for it.

Your position is anything goes, so long as some time in the future you get an apology?

Does that work with Slavery? Israel-Palestine?

-So during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict you had no problem locking up Islamists without due process?

Hell, people lost their minds over listening to phone calls without a warrant.

#155

I posted my remark on the wrong thread. This is what I was responding to:

"#24 As the wife beater continually beats his wife, he keeps telling her, over and over again, "You have cratered your own credibility, b****"
And he does so methodically.
But, according to bell boi, in this scenario, the beaten woman got what she deserved 100%.

Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-13 04:30 PM | Reply"

people lost their minds over listening to phone calls without a warrant.

People should lose their minds over the government listening to private phone calls without a warrant.

Unfortunately those days have long since passed.

#161 | POSTED BY BULLBRINGER

No one cares.

#158 | #159 "...if someone apologized for it."

An apology. How honestly refreshing.

Meanwhile...

#71 New York Penal Law 175.10 is made-up?

Sorry, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut.

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.

#76 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:46 PM

Then ...

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.
#76 | Posted by A_Friend

Increasing it to a felony is Federal jurisdiction.

#79 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-10 06:49 PM

Then...

#79 That is, of course, a lie.

#83 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:51 PM

Then ...

#79

New York Penal Law 175.10 defines Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a Class E Felony, which occurs when someone commits the misdemeanor of falsifying business records (NYPL 175.05) with an additional intent to defraud, which includes intending to commit another crime or to aid/conceal another crime's commission, escalating the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, as seen in cases involving financial fraud or covering up underlying illegal acts.

Gosh, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut, I don't see anywhere in there about the Federal government.

Care to point it out, liar?

#87 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 07:00 PM

No answer (so far).

"No one cares.
#163 | Posted by ClownShack"

Your mom does.

#163 And yet he repeated it for me, Clown. :-)

I should probably thank him for that.

Your mom does.
#165 | POSTED BY BULLBRINGER

The one with cucumbers and a husband named Sam who regularly beats her?

Yea. She's fascinated by you.

-People should lose their minds over the government listening to private phone calls without a warrant.

I agree the illegality should be addressed

People should lose their minds over the government listening to private phone calls without a warrant.
Unfortunately those days have long since passed.

#162 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-01-13 04:57 PM | Reply

I totally agree with you on this.

I'm pretty sure the patriot act legalized the government spying on our phone calls.

People should lose their minds over the government listening to private phone calls without a warrant.
#162 | Posted by ClownShack

I get it, some people politically need their conversations private. But not one got upset when the government was sucking up all that right-wing journalist information, phone, and txts.

So idk man, they could listen to my conversations if they want,

But take my money (time) and waste it?

Seems like you're missing the big picture.

Only the dumbest morons defend living under constant surveillance.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Hell, people lost their minds over listening to phone calls without a warrant.
#160 | POSTED BY EBERLY A

Did anyone apologize for it? Because thats all thats needed.

This is the kind of crap Americans should be really mad about. Not tapping an international call during war time, seems like that would be expected......

Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation, Grassley Oversight Reveals
www.judiciary.senate.gov

Does Clown or Laura support this type of wiretap? Its much more consequential to the future of America.

#171

#71 New York Penal Law 175.10 is made-up?

Sorry, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut.

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.

#76 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:46 PM

Then ...

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.
#76 | Posted by A_Friend

Increasing it to a felony is Federal jurisdiction.

#79 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-10 06:49 PM

Then...

#79 That is, of course, a lie.

#83 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:51 PM

Then ...

#79

New York Penal Law 175.10 defines Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a Class E Felony, which occurs when someone commits the misdemeanor of falsifying business records (NYPL 175.05) with an additional intent to defraud, which includes intending to commit another crime or to aid/conceal another crime's commission, escalating the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, as seen in cases involving financial fraud or covering up underlying illegal acts.

Gosh, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut, I don't see anywhere in there about the Federal government.

Care to point it out, liar?

#87 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 07:00 PM

No answer (so far).

#173 "Did anyone apologize for it? Because thats all thats needed."

Preach it, onepigironheaded smoothbrainaut (25 plonks)

#71 New York Penal Law 175.10 is made-up?

Sorry, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut.

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.

#76 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:46 PM

Then ...

The law isn't subject to your whimsical fantasies.
#76 | Posted by A_Friend

Increasing it to a felony is Federal jurisdiction.

#79 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-10 06:49 PM

Then...

#79 That is, of course, a lie.

#83 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 06:51 PM

Then ...

#79

New York Penal Law 175.10 defines Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a Class E Felony, which occurs when someone commits the misdemeanor of falsifying business records (NYPL 175.05) with an additional intent to defraud, which includes intending to commit another crime or to aid/conceal another crime's commission, escalating the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, as seen in cases involving financial fraud or covering up underlying illegal acts.

Gosh, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut, I don't see anywhere in there about the Federal government.

Care to point it out, liar?

#87 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-10 07:00 PM

Practice what you preach, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut (25 plonks)

- missing the big picture.
#171 | Posted by oneironaut

In big letters on his tshirt and his Passport. Also CA License plate.

A tax on billionaires per se is not right. We need to bring back taxes that were cast aside by the GOP WITH adjustments for inflation. Those include REAL inheritance taxes and Capital Gains taxes. We need to eliminate loans against corporate shares. We also need to do more to curb inheritance type trusts period - the number you can create and the amount that can go into them tax free. People were are more upside down now then in the times of the Robber Barons that caused their creation - wake up.

Two can play this game. California should start cracking down on Waymo which devalued city taxi medallions.

"It's called federal income tax."

And it's only applied on taxable income.

For example, how much did Peter Thiel pay in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES on his ~$10 Billion Roth IRA last year?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
#172 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century:

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.