Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Newsom trying to kill the billionaire tax

Gavin Newsom' and his staff have quietly talked to the champion of a controversial wealth tax proposal seeking an off-ramp to defuse a looming ballot measure fight. The conversations, reported here for the first time, have occurred intermittently for months as SEIU-UHW's ballot initiative targeting billionaires migrated from the backrooms of California politics to the center of a raging debate about Silicon Valley and income inequality, sparking tech titans' wrath and vows to move out of state.

Posted by sitzkrieg at 10:07 AM | 41 COMMENTS | permalink

More

Newsom has staunchly opposed both the current proposal and earlier versions that surfaced in Sacramento, arguing they would hamstring California's tentpole industries and topple a pillar of the state's tax base. Proponents with SEIU-UHW, a major union representing more than 100,000 workers, argue the measure is the only idea commensurate with the scale of federal cuts that could lead to widespread health care job losses and hospital closures.

Comments

If this was a ruse to get the pro-Trump Oligarchs out of California, well played!

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-13 10:23 AM

More like a "BITCH YOURE COSTING US MONEY!" moment.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-01-13 10:35 AM

He has no other way to try to close the deficit. But the proposition was proposed because of income inequality, not to fix the budget.

So in this regard Billionaires leaving its working, without even being implemented.

RoKahanna already came out for it, and this is why the techBros are going else where. They figured if the guy they installed to represent them is for it the State is done for.
Perceived fraud is the biggest issue in the State. Ro Khanna got caught flat footed in his full throated support of the proposition.

Too late..

What Gavin Newsom and Ro Khanna get wrong in the battle over Billionaire Tax
sfstandard.com

The San jose Mayor is quite good.

#3 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 11:09 AM


If this was a ruse to get the pro-Trump Oligarchs out of California, well played!
#1 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

They installed Democrat representatives??... make your logic makes sense.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 11:10 AM

make your logic makes sense.

#4 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

You first Commie Spyboy.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-01-13 11:21 AM

Billionaires distort the real economy.

They make poor places seem rich on paper and statistically.

They drive up housing costs and dominate local politics.

Overall their presence isn't particularly good for regular people.

Tax em' till they scurry off Like the bloodsuckers they are.

Nobody needs Billionaires.

Concentration of Wealth hurts everyone including the Billionaires themselves.

A level playing field used to be considered important,I remember the rhetoric from both parties when I was young.

The "Reagan Revolution" Changed all That.

That's when Greed became "Good" and Billionaires became "Prophets of Prosperity".

---- that and ---- Them Right off.

#6 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-01-13 11:24 AM

4

I hope nobody has fooled themselves into believing that it's only "Trump Oligarchs" that are staunchly against this tax.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2026-01-13 11:42 AM

-Concentration of Wealth hurts everyone including the Billionaires themselves.

How does it hurt billionaires themselves?

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2026-01-13 11:43 AM

Taxes are supposed to be about revenue. When greed and envy turns taxes into a form of punishing success is when things go off the rails.

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-13 11:51 AM


I hope nobody has fooled themselves into believing that it's only "Trump Oligarchs" that are staunchly against this tax.
#7 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If anyone has money and decide to keep as much as possible from confiscation, they must be a Trump supporter. If Snoofy has money and decides to keep as much as possible, hes still a good person.


A level playing field used to be considered important,I remember the rhetoric from both parties when I was young.

Why can't you have billionaires in a level playing field?

#10 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 11:54 AM

"Taxes are supposed to be about revenue."

There you go again. Sometimes it's better remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

You do that a lot you know.

The MAIN purpose of taxes is to provide federal, state, and local governments with the necessary funding to cover their costs and provide essential services that benefit all citizens.

Beyond revenue generation, taxes are a key tool for governments to influence behavior and achieve specific economic and social objectives.

A lie of omission is still a lie brother.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-01-13 11:56 AM

"Taxes are supposed to be about revenue"

What tax code are YOU referring to?

Ever since Dubya's first tax code, taxes are supposed to be about transferring money from the poorest to the richest.

Aren't you paying attention?

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 12:01 PM

#9 You mean like the devastated economy of the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%, bell boi?

Off the rails, like that?

#13 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-13 12:02 PM

Why can't you have billionaires in a level playing field?

#10 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

We can if they pay their fair share.

Inequality has reached a level so extreme that it threatens to blow up our society. It has reached a crisis point. Too many Americans now hold wealth so great that its significance lies not in the goods and services it can buy but rather in the power it can buy. That's a threat to our society.

Why can't we have "patriotic" millionaires and billionaires?

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-01-13 12:02 PM

#8 Social Alienation for one.

Grandiose feelings of Omnipotence aren't healthy or conducive to understanding reality as it actually is.

Bad policies based on individual people getting carve outs for pet projects that don't have real productive Viability but are profitable in the short term.

Space ex etc. Big Data centers when the technology will likely be obsolete before long. Leading to huge social investments to prop up failing business models.

So yeah, Bad for them too.

#15 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-01-13 12:07 PM

-Nobody needs Billionaires.

Should Newsom say that? Oh wait, candidates for office need them.

And this bill indicates they DO need billionaires.....desperately.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2026-01-13 12:12 PM

-Grandiose feelings of Omnipotence aren't healthy or conducive to understanding reality as it actually is.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's a sad existence....with lots of creature comforts.....but sad.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2026-01-13 12:13 PM

"Ever since Dubya's first tax code, taxes are supposed to be about transferring money from the poorest to the richest.
Aren't you paying attention?

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag"

So, you are stating that the tax code taxes the poorest at a very high rate and then transfers that money to the richest in the form of welfare/food stamps, etc?

#18 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-13 12:38 PM

Grandiose feelings of Omnipotence aren't healthy or conducive to understanding reality as it actually is.
- footposer

You talking about billionaires, or the authors of the proposition?

#19 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 01:21 PM

Ever since Dubya's first tax code, taxes are supposed to be about transferring money from the poorest to the richest.
Aren't you paying attention?

That explains the NGOs and all the people now leaving Washington DC.

#20 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 01:22 PM

This is why I'm not a fan of Newsom.

He's just another corporate democrat, owned by wealthy elites.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-01-13 01:30 PM

"So, you are stating that the tax code taxes the poorest at a very high rate and then transfers that money to the richest in the form of welfare/food stamps, etc?"

No, dumfuq. I'm saying the tax code taxes billionaires at a lower overall federal rate than, say, dentists who make $185,000 a year.

I'm also saying the wealthy get to live by a different set of rules. Again, aren't you paying attention??? WE'RE BORROWING NEW TRILLIONS FOR TAX CUT GIVEAWAYS.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 01:38 PM

"That explains the NGOs and all the people now leaving Washington DC."

The folks attending to the needs of the neediest?!? Yeah, that's the plan.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 01:40 PM

#20 **** ANATOMY OF A LIAR AND A COWARD ****

Are you ever going to own up to THIS LIE, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut ? ? ? ?

And I don't suppose that you will own up to your other lie, either.

Well, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut, are you ever going to take responsibility for your own lies ? ? ? ?

#24 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-13 01:42 PM

Ever since Dubya's first tax code, taxes are supposed to be about transferring money from the poorest to the richest.
- Danforth

See the rich like these billionaires are rich from W-2 work/income but capital gains via stock.

Why is going from 28% to 20% capital gains tax not transferring money from richest to poorest.

But 20% to 15% is?

#25 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-13 01:45 PM

"Why is going from 28% to 20% capital gains tax not transferring money from richest to poorest."

Mainly, because you're leaving out the taxes most people pay more of.

You're also pretending both groups have the same incomes, and all their income is taxed the same way.

IOW, you're comparing wages with carried interest.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 01:49 PM

" the rich like these billionaires are rich from W-2 work/income but capital gains via stock"

And when a poor person puts up their Roth IRA as collateral, it ceases to be an IRA. Meanwhile, the wealthiest can offer unrealized gains as collateral.

And when Romney got the $20 million payout from Bain? It was right after the '07-'08 Bush Bust & Bailout; he just sold some paper losses, bought them back in 31 days, and pocketed $20 million without paying a penny of taxes.

You do that all the time, right?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 01:54 PM

#25 So, when are you ever going to take responsibility THIS LIE, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut ? ? ? ?

As well as this other lie, too, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut ? ? ? ?

#28 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-01-13 02:23 PM

-And when Romney got the $20 million payout from Bain? It was right after the '07-'08 Bush Bust & Bailout; he just sold some paper losses, bought them back in 31 days, and pocketed $20 million without paying a penny of taxes.

so I understand that correctly.....if you sell the stock and wait just 31 days to buy it back, then you can write off the loss when you sold against the income you're declaring?

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2026-01-13 02:37 PM

If you're a decent person living decently, contributing to the common welfare is an honor.

#30 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-01-13 03:22 PM

If you're a decent person living decently, contributing to the common welfare is an honor.
#30 | Posted by LegallyYourDead

Our country is running short on both of those.
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
80% of American households aren't living decently. Haven't been for two generations. This next generation isn't looking any better.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-13 03:26 PM

"so I understand that correctly.....if you sell the stock and wait just 31 days to buy it back, then you can write off the loss when you sold against the income you're declaring?"

Yep.*

It's why there's a line on your investment paperwork where "wash sales" are noted. If you repurchase before the 30 days are up, any loss is disallowed.

*You do get a new, lower cost basis...but that's what inheritances are for, amirite?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-01-13 05:24 PM

Where's the tipping point where the 1% aren't triggered into tax flight?

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-01-13 08:04 PM

I don't want to google it. Didn't some Reaganite have a curve for that?

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-01-13 08:05 PM

" I don't want to google it. Didn't some Reaganite have a curve for that?

#34 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2026-01-13 08:05 PM | FLAG: "

I believe it was Art Laffer.

#35 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-13 08:18 PM

believe it was Art Laffer.

Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-13 08:18 PM | Reply

Laffer curve

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-01-13 08:25 PM

"Where's the tipping point where the 1% aren't triggered into tax flight?"

That happened around 1995.

www.investopedia.com
What Is Celtic Tiger?
Celtic Tiger symbolizes Ireland's phenomenal economic growth during 1995-2007. In this period, a combination of low taxes, foreign investment, and strategic EU ties propelled the nation from being one of Europe's poorest to an economic success story.

Key Takeaways
The Celtic Tiger refers to Ireland's dramatic economic growth from 1995 to 2007, characterized by a high average annual GDP growth rate of 9.4% between 1995 and 2000.
Key factors contributing to the rapid growth included low corporate taxes, economic openness, a skilled English-speaking workforce, and substantial foreign investment, especially from the US.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-13 08:44 PM

That's inflow, not outflow. Cali is trying to staunch outflow and raise revenue. There's a tipping point for that. Just the hint of it becoming a ballot issue cost them a couple Google billionaires. What's the larger tipping point?

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-01-13 09:37 PM

Metaphorically, you could say that the union driving this doesn't know how to boil a frog.

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-01-13 09:38 PM

Ever since Dubya's first tax code,

Goes back to Raygun lowering the top rate from 70% to 35% and then making Social Security benefits taxable to make up for the lost revenue.

#40 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-01-14 07:50 AM

So, you are stating that the tax code taxes the poorest at a very high rate and then transfers that money to the richest in the form of welfare/food stamps, etc?

Keep that strawman away from the flames.

#41 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-01-14 02:29 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

NYT Uncovers 5,300+ Epstein Files Mentioning Trump (77 comments)

Trump's Goon Squads Will Kill Again (68 comments)

Epstein Talked Cooperation with Feds Days Before Death (38 comments)

Dems Win Deep Red Texas State Senate Seat (32 comments)

UK PM: Ex-Prince Andrew Should Testify to US Congress (16 comments)

Klein: 'The White House is the Crisis' (16 comments)

Kari Lake Promotes Trump on VoA. Does That Break the Law? (13 comments)

ICE Being Protested in Italy (12 comments)

Democrats Hit Historic High in Fox News Poll (12 comments)

Citizen Forcibly Pulled from Car After Not Showing her 'papers' Fast Enough (11 comments)